Which would be EASIER for the United States to MILITARILY conquer:

I... I don't know.

Probably Canada. Mexico has 4x the population, and I reckon a good deal more national pride. A hypothetical Mexican insurgency would be brutal.

>>32492417

>Number of Wars America has won against Canada
0 (Zero)

>Number of Wars America has won against Mexico
1 (One)

Therefore, going by past experience, Mexico.

>>32492417
>conquer
Define conquer.

>>32492430
con·quer

käNGkər

verb

overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.

"the Magyars conquered Hungary in the Middle Ages"

synonyms: defeat, beat, vanquish, trounce, triumph over, be victorious over, get the better of

>>32492417
Canada, easily

>entire population is situated along the border
>docile and relatively disarmed population
>no drug cartels running around
>extremely small military. Mexican military is five times larger

Canada since they wouldn't fight back.

>>32492444

Sure, but what are your victory conditions? You can bomb parliament into oblivion or otherwise destroy the national government, but have you actually won if the legislative bodies all answer to you but the population is in the middle of an uprising?

>>32492428
>implying the historical context is even remotely comparable to the present day

File: guns per capita.png (31KB, 293x706px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 293x706px

>>32492456
>Canadians
>uprising

I have a friend in Canada who owns a pump action shotgun. The legal capacity is three shells without special permit.

I would pull up the guns per capita for Mexico, but it's probably a dark number given the existence of the cartels. Those fuckers are literally better armed than the Canadian OR Mexican militaries, and ten times as ruthless.

>>32492417
Hmmm...
This is an interesting question.

I would say Mexico at first hunch because literally everything is centralized in and around one fucking city but then again we have everything (basically) centralized in the Windsor Quebec City corridor which isn't very far from any American border.

Mexico has the challenge of logistics because of those pesky mountains and foot hills being a shit and fucking awful roads with Uganda tier bridges and railroads while Canada has up to par at MINIMUM roads and bridges/railroads basically everywhere expect the far North.

For military resistance the Canadian military wouldn't stand a chance but I'd put money on them being able to last a lot longer and put up a far better fight than the Mexican military. In Mexico the biggest resistance would come from the fuckhuge drug cartels. Mexico has the plausibility to become Afghanistan 2 electric boogaloo while it's more than likely Canada could just be blitzed and the US Army wouldn't be bogged down by Pedro and his makeshift Taco IED's.

My vote is for Canada as being an easier military campaign, as well as infinitly more rewarding to conquer.
don't believe me?
>More natural resources than the States
>No spics
Mexico
>Shit for natural resources
>Spics

>>32492466
>I have a friend in Canada who owns a pump action shotgun. The legal capacity is three shells without special permit.

This is the exact reason why I said it'd be easier to conquer Canada.

File: Challenger 2 training in Canada.jpg (203KB, 2000x1124px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 2000x1124px

I imagine the UK would step in to assist Canada, so you wouldn't be fighting just them, but the British as well.

>>32492490
Then it's more like US vs Britain + some help
Or
Mexico

Which is a pretty fucking obvious choice now.

It was interesting because Canada or Mexico is not immediately obvious.

>>32492490
the uk, mexico and canada would get wiped off the face of the earth by the US

File: Canada mapped by trails, roads, streets and highways..png (309KB, 1280x905px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1280x905px

>>32492472
>expect the far North.

There ain't shit up North

Just gotta deal with the south-central and south-eastern

>>32492519
Hence why I said that Canada's infrastructure wouldn't be an issue for the States whereas in Mexico it would.

>>32492472
>My vote is for Canada as being an easier military campaign, as well as infinitly more rewarding to conquer.
>don't believe me?

I agree with this anon

Build a megawall at the southern border and annex Canada and Greenland.

I think the US would succeed both in Mexico and in Canada (ft. Britain) but I also think that there would be less resistance in Canada, as their military is just a joke, Britain wouldn't be able to respond immediatly, and if the US secures and defends the east coast it should be relatively "easy" to win

>>32492466
Serbia at number two? Are those just civilian guns or does that chart count the military and police? Are the Serbs secretly based?

>>32492459
considering canada is a commonwealth country, you better believe we're going to have a few other nations on our side like we did back then

>>32492466
>murica

>112 guns per 100 people

>more guns than people


FUCK YEAH

(still not enough)

>>32492444
>käNGkər
>käNG
SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

File: FredFlintstone.jpg (44KB, 488x410px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 488x410px

The way things are going, America probably won't even need to invade. Buying would be easier.
t. Canadian

>>32492508
The question ain't to know who would win between USA and anybody else.
The question is to know who would be easier to defeat by the USA.

File: BASMAP.gif (56KB, 552x358px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 552x358px

>>32492417

Canada. There's simply too many military bases located closer to Canada vs Mexico. They would steamroll the Canadian Armed Forces before any potential allies could mount a response.

Just a quick reminder for these type of threads.

Nukes are NOT a valid argument.

>>32492424
canada has one road, and 95% of the country is uninhabited wilderness

>>32492417
Wow everyone in this thread sucks. I'm a Canadian and you just assume that the U.S. would be able to conquer us. Ignorant nationalist fucks. How do you know it wouldn't be the opposite?? Because we might even conquer you. In war fucking anything can happen. You have your heads so far up your asses that you think the U.S. is SOOOOO great.

You know what they say about people who ASSume. So literally fuck off.

>>32492466

that is wrong on every single level

there are NO shell limits on any shotguns here

the only limits are on semi auto center fires - 5 rounds.
your friend is a retarded fudd

>>32492671
Canada is too cucked, the people would just welcome the US as their new rulers.

T. Mexicunt

>>32492671

I'm a Canadian as well.

Stay triggered faglord. Canada would lose badly.

File: 1369689591165s.jpg (12KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 245x250px

Geez i wonder

A civilized society on par with America with no culture of violence and widespread corruption and faltering national pride

or'

Cartel land, widespread corruption and enough weapon circulation to make even Americans blush, not to mention somewhat a sense of national pride or simply defending cartel boarders or interest

Mexico s army aint the problem its upholding the law and occupation that's the real bitch

i do believe Canada would be easier to control on the larger scope

>>32492424

you do know Canada became a country partially because of the threat of American invasion, right..? no national pride?

have you ever been to the US? Culturally we are worlds apart. Get out the house Juan

>>32492680
>>32492679
No it wouldn't assholes. I'm so done with you people. I am not an ethnocentric American idiot and a war could literally go either way. 50-50.

I think Mexico would be easier - The Us could probably convincingly false flag some form of pretext that allowed them to get away with it.

Attack Canada and you can be damn sure us (Bongs) would kick out every single one of your airforce bases and no American stuff would sell in Europe.

File: IMG_6597.jpg (95KB, 544x768px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 544x768px

>>32492568
>Serbs
>"secretly" based
It's no secret, anon

>>32492697

>British delusion

>>32492703
I don't think it's delusion to say if you attacked one of our most friendly ex-colonies we'd kick you out of all your bases here (maybe that wasn't clear).

>>32492690

>No it wouldn't assholes

Because...? Everyone here stated reasons for their conclusions not ambiguous one sentence thoughts.

>I'm so done with you people.

Stay triggered.

>I am not an ethnocentric American idiot and a war could literally go either way. 50-50.

How. There is such a massive disparity of force that it wouldn't be close to 50/50. The question is which country would be easier to conquer and regardless of nationality, the consensus seems to be Canada.

>>32492671
the leaf is mad because 'murica would destroy his laaaaaaaaaand and naaaaaaaaaaaative hnoooooome

>>32492490
>>32492499
The UK wouldn't even be a speed bump for the US. They fight the same kind of war we do, but with far less funding and manpower. The US is still better equipped to fight a theoretical superpower on equal footing than it is to fight farmers. Occupying Canada is a far more difficult proposition than neutering all of western Europe.

Mexico has no capacity to with hold an American invasion from the Pacific and the gulf of Mexico.

It would basically be the Seige of Veracruz 2.0

>>32492721
Nigger, did I say that the US would lose against the UK or that the UK + Canada would put up more of a fight than Mexico?

> The US is still better equipped to fight a theoretical superpower on equal footing than it is to fight farmers.
Debatable at best. The US military is now only moving back towards more logistics centered and full spectrum dominance than the ruse it held throughout the early 2000's where the US armed forces were quite literally being exclusively used (and almost exclusively trained) to fight explosive camel cavalry.

>>32492717
>>32492719
The U.S. would not destroy or conquer anything. You are soooo closed-minded it is not even funny. Our Prime Minister is still in his prime and has a brilliant but gentle wit about him. Meanwhile look who is going to be president of the U.S.??

If history has proven anything it is that racism and hate can never win. History is against YOU if you think you could ever defeat Canada. I do not say this as a nationlist, because xenophobia is wrong, but history proves that the U.S. would probably surrender.

>>32492786
Ironic Canadian shitposting still needs to stay on
>>>/pol/
Bud.

>>32492799
Let's count it:
-WW1: hate lost.
-WW2: hate lost.
-Vietnam War of U.S. aggression: hate lost.

You are an idiot and that is a fact. Canada has a mathematically large chance of winning.

>>32492864
Aaaand that's where you prove you know nothing about history.

Randomly assigning the German side in WW1 as 'hate' because you don't understand the geopolitical build up to the conflict, a naive move.

If you want a list of wars where Racism wins, I suggest you look at the foundation of the British Empire....

>>32492508

>just like how they wiped the taliban off the face of the earth

oh wait

>>32492417
>if you kill your enemy, they won

what do you think?

>>32492946
We did nothing wrong

>>32492975
Never said we did old chap, but by the modern Canadian's standard, conquering half the world for it's resources because the natives hadn't figured out guns is a little racist.

>>32492632
>tfw half of your country are liberals
>that means 112 guns per 50 people

wew lad

>>32492417
Canada has a reasonably decent military compared to some of our other allies, and a shitload of empty country to fuck off to.

Mexico is Mexico. We'd be fighting less government and more cartels.

>>32492971
Epic meme, my good friend.

>>32492708
>britbong trying to attack the US
>it would be like a sickly elderly woman trying to kick a goliath with massive pecs

stay delusional, achmed

>>32493002
Nah, most libtards are virtue signalling idiotic fucks. In example, Diane Fuckface has a CC permit, so you know she's got some guns.

>>32493021
>meme
>when it is a fact

;^)

>>32493030
Actual source pls

The US could easily take out of the picture up to a third of the CAF, a few bases and separate the country in two by telling Quebec they can be a country.

>>32492417
Canada, they're mostly disarmed and total cucks too. I have zero respect for Canadians.

File: 1421875544878.jpg (28KB, 432x432px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 432x432px

>>32493199
We're twice as armed as the spics though.

Canada. Tiny population clustered conveniently along the border, plus they have a stable society and similar institutions that could be ready assimilated.

Mexico can't even govern itself or be stable WITHOUT an invasion. An invasion would make an unholy clusterfuck even worse.

>>32492690
>a war with the US could go "50-50"
No it wouldn't. You've got 1/10th of our population. When it came down to it, you'd simply run out of people. Not saying you're not hard or prepared, there's just more of us than there are of you, and that's just a fact.

But I like Canada, and virtually everyone else does too.
You guys are our neighbors and drinking buddies-we share booze, shoot the shit, take turns on the neighborhood watch and on occasion fuck each other's ugly sisters.

>>32492864
stop falseflagging
nobody knows how many layers of shitposting you're on

>>32492632
I mean, why on earth would you have just one gun? There's so many different applications, you could barely get away with 5, and that's if you're willing to make compromises.

>>32493030
>>32493031
It doesn't exist, I spent hours looking for it once and no surprise, it's bullshit.

>>32493219
No, you're twice as armed as the spics SAY they are.
They're actually packing a hell of a lot of heat, they just don't announce it because the guns are full-auto and technically illegal.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/145996427/mexican-community-takes-taboo-stance-on-guns

File: 1435899804129.jpg (17KB, 316x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 316x239px

>>32493258
delet this

We have 3.5 million gun owners, eh.

>>32492684
Canada
>Widespread corruption
All countries have some level of political corruption, we still have less than America, and MUCH less than Mexico.

>no national pride
Because libruls don't jerk off to how white and european they are? Because whiny conservatives on here throw out some fucking memes or offhand quotes from the Prime Minister, or talk about how Sir John A. was an old-fashioned racist so we've obviously abandoned our history, or some garbage, because we don't think like that as a nation? Not to mention the fact that there's nothing more retarded than blindly obeying the edicts of some great and glorious leader of the past, without any regard to thinking for yourself.

Honestly, the same people who talk about lack of national pride... are the ones without any. The ones delusional enough to think that an unprovoked invasion and annexation of our country is somehow going to magically improve things because they'll 'bring freedom' along with it.

I'll say right now, collaborationist mother-fuckers are the first targets on my list, if that ever becomes reality.

Even though most people here are agreeing that Mexico would win, there still seems to be some mislead people. The current Mexico is not the Mexico of past. They have been at war with the cartels for about a decade now. Both sides constantly one-upping each in strategy and military technology as each day passes. By now, Mexico's military is quite formidable. On the hand, Canada's military has been stagnant for decades due to no need to ramp up military exercises or equipment. The harder war would undoubtedly be with Mexico. Being a spic is not a valid argument.

>>32492417
Mexico because it doesn't get cold. We just embargo it for a while and then mop up the starved population

File: Trump_vs_Weedman.png (2MB, 1300x1100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x1100px

I love getting to post this

>>32492490
Uk has nukes though. Europe might join in as well due to Nato and getting pissed at fallout from the nuked British Isles. USA would win but might take a bit of damage in return. Mexico would be safer and save you the expense of building a massive wall across your continent.

File: Gx7ns4m.png (27KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 240x240px

>>32492417
no body fucks with my hat.
>no body

>>32492466
>three shells without special permit

For pump guns, there is no mag limit. Either you or your "friend" is retarded, or this is bait.

>>32493291
Now to add to what I said >>32493269 here, I do agree that Mexico would be the harder place to invade for the most part.

Canadians would probably be able to wage a more effective insurgency, because we 'look' the same (inb4 America is full of mexicans) and sound similar, and because of a much higher degree of civilian firearm ownership. We could probably make some pretty sophisticated IED's too. But the actual invasion would be a landslide victory for the US, both due to the way our country is laid out, and because the only time in our country's last 50 years that we were able to procure equipment for our soldiers quickly in some quantity was when General Rick Hillier was Chief of Defence Staff, and used his popularity and massive balls to force the (Harper) government to crack open its wallet.

I don't have any idea what people know about 'The Big Cod' (Esprit de Corps magazine did a contest to choose him a nickname, and he liked it cause he was a Newfie) since I'm the only one who's ever mentions him, but he's a guy who didn't shy away from talking straight, like when he called the Taliban a bunch of "Scumbags" in an interview. I've never liked how he resigned from the position, there seemed to be no reason for him, someone who seemed to love being a soldier, and definitely cared about the troops, would decide to take retirement after only about 3 years on the job, in 2008 when the war in Afghanistan was still a big deal for Canada. And frankly assume it's because the vocal and (equipment) demanding tendencies of his made him too inconvenient for the government. Nevermind that he's the sole reason why we have Leopard 2 tanks at all, or had airlift capacity via several leased Chinook helicopters. He was the closest thing we've had to a Canadian version of Mattis.

I didn't mean to side-track that much, but fuck it...

>>32492671
Stop being a moron. I don't think we'd be steamrolled quite as easily as most of them seem to think, but if we had no outside help we'd ultimately lose. They're ten times our size, even if they were a backwards 3rd world country, we'd lose. It'd be a horrible international decision and would probably start world war 3, but in an isolated bubble between us and them, we'd lose.

>>32493291
>By now, Mexico's military is quite formidable
Maybe for the cartels. It's literally Sadam tier.

Leaf here. Our entire military is a fraction of the size of the US Marine Corps so we'd be defeated militarily in no time. It could lead to a civil war in the United States of the ruling government is unjust. You'd be giving anyone that wants instability or a regime change a just cause to do so.

You could say the same for the invasion of Mexico, except it makes more sense politically if the reasoning is bringing security and order to a country overrun by cartels vs people who aren't called Americans because they're Canadians.

>>32492677
Also ten round limits on centerfire pistols. Just sayin'.

>>32493024
Canada would have all of Europe on its side, not just the Brits. Not saying we'd win, just pointing it out.

>>32493199
I'm sorry that you feel this way

>>32493406
Every non white country to you is Saddam teir. Nice try chad

>>32492417
Canada can deal with another 1812

>>32493242
>assault/battle rifle
>(scoped) hunting rifle
>shotgun
>.22 or other small caliber rifle
>handgun

I think that's all anyone really needs. Any more is just for funz, not practicality.

>>32492466
That's wrong baka

>>32493394
>because of a much higher degree of civilian firearm ownership

You obviously don't know anything about Mexican civilian gun ownership. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean we give a fuck. Gotta do something to protect your family.

>>32492417
Canada are SJW pacifist pussies. Mexico is a violent shit hole filled with drug cartels, gangs, and crooked cops and military who patrol the streets with full autos.

And you really have to ask?

>>32493449
Actually most non white armies are way below Sadam teir. It's gonna be hard for Mexico to put up a fight when the US has complete air and sea control. Does Mexico even have tanks? Tip top Kek Jose.

>>32492671
lmao, this has to be a false flag... right?

>>32493480
That's not the point! The question was which country would be harder to fight. I know almost no nation can overpower the U.S alone, however, compared to the rest of the world, Mexico has a formidable military. It's certainly not the one of old.

>>32493497
Mexico would be harder to fight because of the cartels. The Mexican army has nothing to do with it.

>>32493480
>tanks
>thinks we live in the 40's

Lel, who the fuck needs tanks in this era? Just a waste of resources and money. Tanks are so obsolete

>>32493515
I deleted it because of the double negative. Here's the ine you're replying to>>32493510

>>32493515
>implying they wouldn't partner up during a war with another nation

>>32493472
>Toronto equals all Canada
lol

>>32493547
No, but Canada=all of Toronto

Mexico would be faster.
Military would defect more easily to a surrender, cartel are cowards and would flee south if they thought they were going to get caught.

Canada could probably at least fall back into a colder climate that would make stuff slower and more difficult to fight in.

>>32493074
this lol, anglo canadians and chinese btfo

>>32492519
> trails
what is this fucking 1850

Attacking south is easier because you got gravity on your side

>>32493664
You mean if we want Quebec out, all we need to do is wait for the US to invade? Holy shit, why didn't anyone tell us sooner?

>>32492466
Yer friend's a dumb fudd.
Mag limits don't exist for manual action or .22. Only semi-auto centrfire. 5 for longguns, 10 for handguns.

Also, no limit on mags MARKED AS BEING FOR .22lr or manual. So there is a TON of loopholes. Only matters what the mag is intended for.
Ie. AR15 mag for .50beo 5 rounds. Holds ~17 .223. So using it as an improvised .223 mag is ok. Or a 15rnd mag MARKED for a bolt action, that fits the semiauto variant. This too is ok. And so on.
Canadian gun laws are full on retarded, but also super easy to work around.

>>32492417
That said, to OP question, it depends on victory conditions. Our government will roll over IMMEDIATELY. They suck, bad. And cityfags will spread em at the drop of a hat.
But if it is total conquest, then rural canadians are nearly all gun owners, have loads of nationalistic pride, and can camp out in the wilderness that is ~92% of our country.
Imagine the difference between "conquering" California vs. The Appalacians.

>>32492466
Common fuddlore I see repeated on CGN and even heard it in my PAL course

>>32493701
That's what you get for coming in droves and yelling NO PLS STAY WE LOVE YOU every time there's a referendum you tsundere fucks

>>32492466
>The legal capacity is three shells without special permit.
How about you stop spreading lies you fucking retard

>>32492459
Well, they're still run by a corrupted Spanish government and roving gangs and primarily an agricultural society of illiterate obese peasants so not much has changed. The biggest difference is how many of them live here now.

Canada on the other hand has a functional government with a competent military and Arctic weather to the north, like Russia.

>>32492490
>UK, wanting to get annihilated and lose all of its economic investments in America, plunging its currency into the second brixit

Not likely. They'd turn a blind eye, maybe provide economic, humanitarian, and arms aid to the Canadians. That and I'm sure they'd give public shunning and stern talks to America.

Tl;Dr UK is useless

File: cnsp-logo.jpg (49KB, 960x626px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 960x626px

>>32493305
Please do this.
Not even liberals want this faggot anymore

t. Canadian Nationalist

>>32493521
You can't really be this dumb senpai

>>32493542
Like who? Another South American country? How are they going to get anywhere near where they need to be to help Mexico? Can't go by sea, and they can't go through Panama? Actually, no country in the world could come to mexicos defense considering America has total control of the seas.

>>32492459
>thinking it's not
lol'd

>>32493305
10/10 would participate with my grorious chinese M1A

>>32493762
If a few retards offering hugs and kisses are enough to overcome your separatists, you need to rethink your plans.

(Also, hire a few more ballot forgers)

>>32492671
GDP spending on military

We defeated Russia without even a direct engagement. Lol, you think you're better than Russia?

File: 1386204093517.png (355KB, 661x721px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 661x721px

>>32493814
Our whole province is all about being butthurt about the past

File: de_gaulle_montreal.jpg (141KB, 550x380px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 550x380px

>>32493830
Give me advance warning on your next referendum and I'll have muddy boots stepping on Quebec flags all over the nation.

>>32492417
But if you conquer Canada they win

>>32492786
>Racism and hate never win

Tell that to everyone conquered by the mongol hordes. Everyone conquered by the Japanese, Chinese, the countless tribes that are constantly killing each other across Africa and the middle east.

Moral high ground doesn't win wars; lead, steel, and high explosive compounds do.

>>32493748
Truly Fuddlore is more toxic up here in Canada. My father has a pumpgun with a 6 shell capacity. He is constantly paranoid that the RCMP are going to come kick down his door. He also loads his pistol mags to only 5 rounds... "just in case".

>>32493855
It'll probably never happen.
Bitching and moaning is alive and well but actual activism and separatism are long dead.

I for one welcome our burger overlords.

Canadafag here.

If you're talking just a fight with zero outside intervention, Canada, no problem.

If you're talking in the global climate? Mexico. If America attacked Canada, everyone would lose their shit because Canada is the global sweetheart. If the US attacked Mexico, I bet a lot of countries would be like "Well they had it coming with those cartels and illegal immigrants, etc".

>>32492459
>government run by cartels
vs
>government run by jews
tough one

>>32493807
No, you fucking simian, I mean partner up between the Mexican government and cartels.

File: image.jpg (101KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x382px

>>32493856
Kekimus Maximus

>>32492417

Wew.

Have you seen General Mattis interview where he described to conditions of winning the war?

Even before you (your politicians) start the war, you need to very clearly define the political goals you want to achieve so that you can also end the war. In every other situation the war becomes endless.

Watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggjdGNLXyI

>>32493724
You onviously dont know much about california.

The majority of the population outside the 3 major cities are conservatives and gun owners. We probably have more gun owners living in the sierra nevada mtns and southern desert than in the entire appalachians.

Also consider the environment in CA. The entire eastern border is a shit show to get through. Sierra nevadas where there are less than 3 major roadways that can handle heavy vehicles. And the southern desert which would be very difficult to occupy, and if we were to assume a foreign country was attacking, would be impossible to even get to with alot of our militaries air shit being their.

Coast wise, a foreign military would be fucked if they have to get through the navy. Air support from thise desert bases plus the makority of our seals and missile shit is along the coast. Amd if an enemy force somehow landed they would need to bombard the 3 major cities otherwise they would be stuck in a red dawn situation.

>>32493870
A Finn here. I guarantee that our Nation (and every nation I personally know) would go absolutely crazy in uproar if USA attacked Canada.

Mexico, well, there would be an uproar, too.

>>32492661
Wrong.
Nukes are ALWAYS a valid argument.
Always.

>>32493966
Correct, having never been there, nor any desire to. But in that case, compare invading (liberal shithole city of your preference) to invading (rural gunloving area of forestmen).

You got my point, but decided to nitpick. Good for you.

>>32494022
>cities are always liberal shitholes
>rural is always full of gun-loving good folks
>delusions

>>32494032
Nobody said all cities are liberal and all rural areas are good. Good god, wok on your reading comprehension.

>>32492679
*GOVERNMENT is to cucked
not its people

Western ways of war don't work against endless waves of dispersed expendable partisans with nothing to lose. Not even the cartels can truly control Mexico.

Canada is smaller, Westernized, depends on trade with the US, and could be denied all external support by the US Navy. Destroying infrastructure for the useful purpose of cold-enhanced genocide is the best counterinsurgency method ever and proven by US destruction of prairieboons.


Canada would be easier to kill, therefore easier to conquer. Mexico is vast, poor, with few high value targets. Mexico could easily exhaust the US in unconventional war even if we were fine with genocide due to volume of beaners.

Mexico, like stick, wins.

File: thepianist.jpg (220KB, 1024x719px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1024x719px

>>32492417
I'd say Canada. Militarily they're stronger than Mexico I'd say, but after they're beat there wouldn't be too much resistance afterwards. Most of the population is concentrated on our border with it declining significantly the farther north you go.

Mexico on the other hand would be easy to beat militarily, but the civilian population would be much more resistant and would be willing to drag it out as long as it took.

File: Soviet Soldiers.jpg (405KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1024x673px

>>32492864

>-WW2: hate lost.

File: 24231845.jpg (160KB, 670x450px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 670x450px

>>32492417

canada is full with ukrainian scum. they will run at american forces to surrender.

>>32492417
We've been fighting in a desert for the past decade and because of Vietnam we would be already acclimated to mexicos terrain. We could completely surround them with our navy and bombard their coasts without even putting boots on ground. We would decimate Mexico easily. I don't think so easily with Canada considering the size of the country and truly harsh conditions of the climate. Canadian winters would fuck up infantry.

>>32492417
Canada is sparsely populated, the populace is largely disarmed of effective weaponry and the majority of the population reside primarily in Quebec and Ontario.

Canada would get rolled a lot easier than Mexico, Mexico has been fighting cartels and has a populace full of people with illegal weaponry and experience in urban fighting.

File: 14645552239050.jpg (56KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x400px

>>32494627
>Canada is sparsely populated

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA so was Ukraine. and looks how it worked for their indepence.

>>32494627
>Canada is sparsely populated
>the majority of the population reside primarily in Quebec and Ontario.
Stop posting anytime.

>>32493348
>Implying Canada isn't the US's 9001 gallon hat, and therefore the best hat

>>32494727
Learn to read anytime, retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population_growth_rate

>>32494741
>Learn to read anytime, retard
Funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what "sparsely" means.
Canada's population is anything but sparse.

>>32492466


FUCK CONQUEST

We need to liberate our neighboring nations


Those poor people!!!!

We should also air drop burgers to relieve taco madness.

God bless us, everyone.

>>32492864
WW1: I don't remember the central powers being motivated by hate, rather maintaining their honor.
WW2: Half of Europe was conquered by the Soviet Union, which was more or less trading one evil for another.
Vietnam: France's colonial mess we were forced to clean up to make sure the guidance of "Uncle" Joe don't fuck it up even worse.

I'm not who were replying, but you just surpassed Trudeau's level of retardation by posting that.

>>32493814
you also needed sponsorship fraud and illegally fund the NO campaign much more money than the law allowed.

>>32494762
>3,855,103 square miles of territory
>The majority all live next to the US border

Yeah, it's totally not sparse to bunch into multi-million population centers right next to the hypothetical invading country, dumbfuck

>>32492677
He clearly heard about capacity limits for hunting migratory birds. You're must block your tube to 3 shells for this type of hunting.

>>32494787
>proves my point
lol
Read a dictionary sometime

File: leafs r stoopid.gif (243KB, 3125x2374px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 3125x2374px

>>32494795
>Entire north is barely inhabited
>This isn't sparse
>Leaf education
>Muh semantics make me smart

Stay butthurt syrupnigger

>>32493855
top kek, we cant even manage ourselves for fucks sake. Just recently we had a media mogul as head of opposition and currently we have a chinstrapped fat autistic cunt as prime minister

>>32492535
Why Greenland?
Greenland is a barren land; a land that bears no green.

>>32492699
But anon, those are Bosnians :^)

>>32492659 is there a higher res version of this somewhere?

>>32494818
Canada's population is super dense relatively to the area it occupies.

who cares about a couple gas huffers and has-been industrial towns

>>32492417
Mexico.
As most of the population of canada is close to the bordet, we can expect a fucklot of retaliatory serbian style cross border raids. That border too big. That bitch so big you cant even enforce it. And they WILL have the natives on their side.
And top kek it will be an easy diplomatic win for canada if we ever invade them.
On the other hand, nobody cares about mexico

File: bloody-andrew-jackson-fairey.jpg (104KB, 460x260px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 460x260px

When I was young the ghost of Andrew Jackson himself came to me in the night and stood at the foot of my with his miraculously flowing locks of colonial hair, a death gaze that could turn Medusa to stone and said simply "I want Canada dead, my son," and then disappeared with a burning English flag in his hand. Ever since then I have had the life dream of murdering every single Canadian, burning down their homes and exterminating their pathetic little nation hahaha. I am so ready to kill Canadians and rape their women, to watch their cucklord men bow down before their rightful American overlords. They're so pathetic they rely on the US to defend them in the event of Russian invasion HAHAHAHA stupid syrup chugging fucks. 1812 never forget, for the glory of the United States and the destruction of cucknadia.

>>32492466

Manually operated firearms have no capacity limit in Canada, the only time a shotgun would be limited to 3 rounds would be hunting migratory birds.

We have lots of guns here, they are much easier to get than people seem to think they are.

if you invade canada the whole world would attack the u.s so mexico would be a easier target

Russia would help Canada. They wouldn't care about the US invading a narco-state.

>>32494830
sneaky roach

>>32492946
And the French, Belgian and German empires.

>implying Mexico wouldn't destroy the US thanks to Hispanic fifth column

>>32492417
Canada. Easily.

Our entire military plan for a US invasion is to immediately go to insurgency, with Canadian Armed Forces members returning home to form Crown militia cells.
All while we wait for the rest of the world to come save us.


Mexico would be far more difficult to beat, even though their Military is shit, because of >>32492424

>>32495249
Russia cares about Russia. We could buy them off with a tasty chunk of our Northern Corporate Appendage.

IRL the US will just continue to buy Canadian support so blowing up what you can own by proxy is retarded.

>>32492490
>>32493796
You do know that we store a large portion of UK armed forces equipment in Canada, because we have huge training facilities while the UK is a semi-crowded island.

It would end up being a USA vs Commonwealth scenario quickly.

>>32495350
>It would end up being a USA vs Commonwealth scenario quickly.

With what navy? The US has more ships than the entire commonwealth combined.

>>32492786
behind every shitpost
>the leaf

>>32495350
>we store a large portion of UK armed forces equipment in Canada

dude wot

in any case Britain isn't going to take sides in a dispute between NATO countries all because of equipment storage and muh commonwealth

>Britain and America are nuclear fuckbuddies and have a special relationship
>america would obvously apease and work with Britain over the issue of their equipment storage because why needlessly let their easy-peasy walk in the park annexing of Canada ruin their millitary ties with one of the few NATO countries that aren't freeloaders

also

AUSUKUS is the new CANUKUS to be totally brutally honest with you lad

>>32492786
>Our Prime Minister is still in his prime and has a brilliant but gentle wit about him

This has to be a troll, nobody except a shitskin or liberal would willingly say that about cuck boy.

>>32494825
Greenland is rich in minerals like you wouldn't believe.

We can beat Canada in conventional warfare...The pacos on the other hand need to be nuked or else they will bring on insurgency.

>>32492424

Mexico would be easier bruh

>>32492417
mexico
high criminality
the gov has trouble in peacetime to keep control
only modern weapons are small arms

to be honest no country on this planet could withstand the might of the US miliatry (thats coming from someone who doesnt like the US).

>>32492671
>in war anything can happen
are leafs that dumb? when the US attacked afganistan and iraq there was no doubt that the US would be voctorious. Only how long it would take was the question.
The only thing i will give you is that you as canadians at least attack the US mainland with artillary, missiles and planes.

>>32492697
you bongs need the US more then the US needs you. There are enough coutries in europe that want a US partnership.

>>32493430
im not sure mate. europe would just be happy not to get US attention for a while

>>32492601
That might have carried some weight like 20 years ago.

>>32492671
gr8 b8 m8

GAS THE LEAFS

DAY OF THE RAKE NOW

>>32492697
This.

Very few nations would give a fuck about the US taking over Mexico and some might even approve.

Attacking Canada would be political suicide.

We would be seen as bullies and become international pariahs.

Canada is family.

The United States could never defeat Canada in a million years.

If you kill your enemies, they win. How do you defeat an enemy who's victory is death?

>>32492690
You fags know this is b8 rite?

>ethnocentric
> The United States

Pick one and only one.

>>32496931
>Canada is family

No, Mexico is family. Our two nations are brothers.

File: Vietnam People's Air Force (VNPAF) Sukhoi Su-30.jpg (135KB, 1180x1331px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1180x1331px

>>32496717
>to be honest no country on this planet could withstand the might of the US miliatry

>>32492466
Lol I just remembered I have like 4 or 5 hunting rifles that I inherited from my gramps

That's 5 guns for my family of four

>>32496176
>Believing a /pol/ falseflag
There are no liberal Canadians on /k/.
Don't be such a sucker for drama.

>>32497105
Is there any bigger boogieman than /pol/?

There are liberals on /k/, there are even Hillary shills on /k/.

Mexico would be far harder. Mostly because of gangs/cartels. We would have armed insurgencies within the states. Mexico has a bigger population, and a pretty well equipped military.
Mexico is also pretty rough terrain with shitty infrastructure.
And Mexicans have alot more national pride.
To win against the Mexicans we would have to go all out. No liberal policy.
We would need the armed forces to operate how they deem fit. Mexico would need to be fought Vietnam style. Hundreds of thousands of troops, lots of carpet bombing, or in this case drones.

>>32496892
Underrated

>>32497120
Why would a liberal Canadian be on /k/ though?
Hillshills maybe, because there is a handful of cognitive-dissonance Democrats who are gun owners.
But in Canada every party but the Conservatives and Libertarians want outright gun bans. A liberal senator tried to shat out a bill where muzzle loaders and .22lr boltguns would be the only guns allowed, and to be stored at special storage facilities.
The conservatives just about laughed it out of the house.
There are no Liberal gun owners in Canada.

>>32497156
To troll people, just like Hill shills on /k/.

>>32497120
Furthermore, /pol/ itself wasn't the boogieman in my post. It was that you are carrying the impressions of Camadians from /pol/ (liberal shitposters) over to /k/, where you have an entirely different breed of Canadians.

>>32497192
The very same canadians that browse /pol/ browse /k/, it's not a very big site.

File: leon-trotsky.png (80KB, 534x307px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 534x307px

>>32492864
>-WW2: hate lost

>>32492632
And that's just the 'official' estimates based on the number of 4473's filled out. That doesn't account for multiple guns done on a single 4473, self-made guns, etc. Some people estimate that number to be 50% to 100% larger than that making it up to about 2.3 guns per person.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 253x390px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 253x390px

Unless we decide "fuck it lets JDAM the ever living shit out of these things" Mexico would be one helluva insurrection. Canada on the other hand the population will probably be more "friendlier" to a US invasion

meixco is a waste of time,

>>32493870
>>32493971
As a Canadian, I honestly don't think it would matter which country they invaded. It'd be an abuse of their superior force, and would scare the bejesus out of every other first world country. It would create a "what's to stop them from taking us if they wanted" mentality in the world, and everyone would see the US as a huge threat, not the world police. Yes, the US does do something similar to shithole countries, but it never conquers them, just "liberates" them for gain. That excuse wouldn't work for Canada or even Mexico.

>>32493988
If invading Canada, that would mean nuking a country who's main resources are fresh water, mining, and oil. Stupid to destroy those things or make them harder to get with nukes.

>>32494546
Channing Tatum on the right with a moustache

>>32492864
Where the fuck is Canada even going to get the necessary power and numbers to even stand a chance of fighting toe-to-toe with the modern US military?
Maybe those Canadians have a secret army of supersoldiers hidden away in those forests.

>>32492417
>live in Canada

it would be "EASIER" for the US "MILITARILY" to conquer canada but the indistinguishable populous some of which would go terrorist is something the US as we know it probably would not survive you guys haven't had a war in your own back yard for a century or more i don't think you all have the appetite for a half century of car bombs and ruined infrastructure

personally i wouldn't care

>>32493897
The cartels are already partnered with the CIA though.

File: trump-smirk.jpg (48KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x300px

>>32493971
And then do what? Pass a nonbinding resolution?

>>32492417
Mexico. The actual invasion would be over in days, since Mexico is s centralized as Fuck and has been a politically unstable hellhole for nearly 3 centuries.

Post-war you have the insurgency of the Cartels and gov die-hards. The people will turn on the Cartels when America starts the hearts and minds thing and actually boots in doors within hours of getting the Intel, and the die-hards would either join the new gov or become militarily inconsequential.

Both will be easy for the US military. The difference is whether or not the US has the balls to end the insurgency afterwards.

>>32499017
I can't believe yuuros would do more for Canada than they did for, say, Ukraine. And it's much easier to project force there than across an ocean with the navy they don't have.

>>32492786
/pol/ is that way
>>>/pol/

>>32497156
>There are no Liberal gun owners in Canada
Talk about cognitive dissonance.

>>32492417

Canada could EASILY be conquered WITHOUT genocide of the Canadian patriots

Mexico could NOT be easily conquered WITHOUT genocide of the Mexican patriots.

>>32499233
That post isn't very /pol/.

>>32492424
that would only matter if mexico was invading us. If we wanted to invade someone, mexico would probably be easier.

File: 1446516765374.jpg (166KB, 953x780px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 953x780px

come and take it faggots, your border jumper and dindu soldiers from the south will want nothing to do with winnipeg winters

>>32492444
>käNGkər
WE WUZ KANGSZ N SHIET!

>>32492490
I'd fight the British

>t. Very freedom starved Canadian

>>32492490
I feel like the bongs would come to our aid here in freedomland honestly.

For their sake yknow.

And plenty of the canucks would love us to annex them.

File: angry geese.jpg (271KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1600x1067px

>>32492417
Mexico, because if you try to invade canada you have to run the gauntlet of these huge fuckers

>>32492417
Canada, I'll do everything I can to help. Fucking Freedom when?

File: 635651766250761093-wsog-01-cover.jpg (82KB, 534x712px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 534x712px

>>32492671
Pic related = You

>>32492417

Canada. Mexico's military might seem pretty shabby, but their connections to the black market plus a hypothetical event such as this leading to national jockeying would quickly lead to them "somehow" ending up with Type-99 MBTs and J-10s like a Chinese Cuba.

Huh, speaking of the J-10, there's apparently less than 500 of them built. I thought the entire point behind them was that they were a cheaper F-15?

>>32501523
They are cheaper than a F15
But China doesn't have a need for thousands of them, nor does it have the money to waste on spamming them right now.

USA already outnumber any other country in modern airplane and that's not even considering quality here.

Trying to compete in such a number game would send a message that they are gearing up for large-scale war.
Which would give weight for the US military to get the budget to gear up similarily.
All this while China just isn't ready to keep up yet.

File: mexico_deadgunman.jpg (29KB, 331x398px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 331x398px

>>32492466
>cartels. Those fuckers are literally better armed than the Canadian OR Mexican militaries
What a dumb meme.

Every time they clash with the army they get shrekt.

The reason they continue to operate is because when the army is around they lie down and blend with the populace while operating discreetly. Of all dumb shit Hilldog ever said, comparing them to an insurgency wasn't that wrong.

>>32492669

90% of Canada's population and industry more or less borders NY and Washington state.

So the "size" doesn't mean anything.

>>32492659
anyone?

>>32492490
Good, the British are fucking subhumans that don't deserve to govern themselves anymore, just like Canada and Australia.

We should annex the entire anglosphere so you willful slave cucks can get some fucking liberty.

>>32492671
Why is it that there always has to be some absolute fucking moron like this giving the rest of us leafs a bad reputation?

Mexico

I want to see the brownie shitstains get wrecked

Just like they raised their shitty flag and burned/stepped on the American one, we should return the favor

Burn all mexican flags, kill their politicians, destroy their cartels and claim the glorious guns and money as war bounty

>>32505746
I bet it's a fucking Australian. They're so fucking jealous Canadians can own nearly any guns we want.
I'm even half convinced shitty leafposts on /pol/ are probably Aussies as well. Falseflagging to create a new target so they can ditch their reputations as insufferable shitposters.

>>32492424
>Mexico
>Pride for its government
Dude, so long as you can provide food and services to the locales and do a good job for them, you can convince them to support you. Why do you think people were protesting against the arrests of El Chapo?

>>32492466
>. Those fuckers are literally better armed than the Canadian OR Mexican militaries, and ten times as ruthless.
How about no. They're equipped as well, but alot of those fucks knowledge on how firearm works is Hollywood tier at most (Except for Los Zetas, those guys know their shit)

Canada only because lack of population. Although the Canadian rebels could last forever in the wilderness.

File: 1364329822248.jpg (47KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x300px

>>32492451
>Ports operated by mafia and motorcycle gangs
>The majority of people not living in toronto own weapons
>no way to use your countries main tactical advantage, your navy because the country is a fucking huge landmass
>literally 54% of the country is muskag or dense forest,
>there is one road and a metric dickload of swamps, you blow one bridge it will LITERALY cut off everything north of Manatoulin, and take weeks to go around.
>the best trained general infantry in NATO
>canadians arent docile, just friendly, we are an angry bunch of people with a good retail smile


Toppling our gov't would be easier than pissing in a lake, but actually conquering the country would be a logistical nightmare that hasnt been seen since napoleon times.

The country has over 70% of the worlds fresh water, go look at a map of canada that shows water, the province of ontario alone has over 250,000 lakes and over 100,000 kilometres of rivers. You dont just go around things here, you take the road or you dont move on a map

Taking out the Toronto area and holding it would be like trying to take los angeles in terms of scope, the insurgency would be appaling with 12 million angry people in a compact area.

All of our natural resources lay north of the toronto area. Unless you really value a salt mine in windsor

Tl;dr Invading canada is like invading russia, but make it wet, very wet, everywhere. And holding it would be like pulling teeth.

>>32492490

How're you going to get over that sea when it's guarded by the largest navy in the world?

>>32507057
Forgot to mention that our radar and air defence systems were funded by the US due to russia existing past 1945.

>>32507057
Think again sport. Hudson Bay is liquid in summer theses days!

That northwest passage thing turned out to be real!

>>32507316
A 2 month invasion season from a body of water that has no roads to it, congratulations you found our Achilles heel, an amphibius assault 850km away from anything relevant.

>>32507057
90% of the Canadian population is within 100 miles of the US border.

This would make logistics easier, but would make it a nightmare to keep Canadians from crossing into the US to go fuck things up

>>32492417
Canada by far. All the important bits are in a very small area, generally very close to the US border, as opposed to Mexico, which has a very large area that needs to be covered.

>>32507057

1. Who gives a shit about the fresh water, what does that have to do with anything?

2. Why wouldn't we just encircle Toronto and let those faggots starve, maybe even lob a few shells/bombs on the city?

3. As for you infantry, it's irrelevant when there's 10 times as many well trained infantry facing them, with better armor support, better air support, and better logistics.

I say Canada. Military is decent but not as battle hardened as the Mexicans although they do receive better training. Also the Canadian resistance would be a joke in comparison to Mexican resistance.

>invade mexico
>tell the people that if they fight their government they get citizenship
>it's over in days

>>32493269
Don't fuck with Canada, or this anon's going on the motherfucking warpath.

>>32508830
Just shout at him in German and his french roots will make him complusively surrender

>>32492417
surprised we haven't annexed canada

File: 220px-On_Ne_Passe_Pas_1918.jpg (26KB, 220x310px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 220x310px

>>32509014
That could also backfire depending on which roots reacts faster.

>>32509094
As long as hes not related to Leo Major I think we're alright

>>32496892
>day of the rake
I'm a leaf and I kek'd. But nah man. Canada would give America Hell. They'd win, no question, but god fucking damn if we wouldn't give them Hell. Invading Canada would be a nightmare. It's cold, it's wet, it's full of wilderness and nothing, a recipe for insurgencies and we have more guns than you'd think. Mag caps are a thing but for many of us, going from 5 to 30rds is a matter of removing a pin or spacers, not to mention the people whose guns aren't legal who didn't care about mag caps in the first place. Given all the farms, you're looking at a lot of high-powered IEDs made of fertilizer. And we're prouder than anyone thinks. You're looking at a lot of angry Cletuses with shotguns and high-powered rifles, and they're by no fucking means trained soldiers, but they can shoot straight and be sneaky, and for once, Cletus and Jamal are on the same side, and Jamal has even less of a problem with violence and an even bigger gun to do it with. Cops probably won't be too happy either, particularly not the Mounties, who also serve as counterterror and are even better trained than some parts of the actual military. And this isn't even STARTING on the absolute diplomatic clusterfuck and the potential to also be dealing with Bongs, the entirety of Scandinavia, and the internal strife from people who aren't supportive of the war for various reasons, including many of your soldiers who trained, fought and made good friends with our own. You fuck with us and everyone hates you. Mexico on the other hand, would give you slightly less Hell. The cartels and government would honestly be too busy and exhausted fighting one another to even THINK about the US troops and the people don't really care as long as they're safe-ish.

>>32508663
Only the poor cholos in the northern states would fall for that.

we should just annex canada and invade mexico

>>32493269
this anon has it all figured out

If you invade mexico you'll have to go through all the pissed off vatos that don't want meddlesome US troops fucking with their drug trade

>>32507057
>canadians arent docile, just friendly, we are an angry bunch of people with a good retail smile
This. But I'm not surprised, Americans have a habit of mistaking kindness for weakness.

>>32510127
reminds me of a scene out of the movie tusk. guy goes to canada and the canadian tells him "we're not nice, we're optimistic. theres a difference."

>>32492964
Cant kill an ideology, but you can kill a country

File: Bitch, I'm a pussy and even I know that's fucked up.png (119KB, 306x273px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 306x273px

>>32507057
>>the best trained general infantry in NATO

>>32492417
NATO would get butt hurt if we attacked Canada, everyone would step in just so they could say they helped, America would be shunned by pretty much the entire world. If we attacked Mexico, all of the cartels would be paid by the government and act as a proxy to the beaner military, everything would eventually go to shit, government becomes nonexistent, Mexico becomes the middle east 2.0. EVERYBODY LOSES! YAY!

>>32492466
>Norway 31.3
>mfw I own 5 rifles and a shotgun
Oh my

>>32510162
Tell that to Poland you fag, there was no Polish state for 123 years and they still came back.

>>32492417
Tbh: Canada
These days if the Americas were desperate, Canada would probably sooner appropriate into the US than Mexico would.

Canada: Enslaves Alaska (and possible Russian clusterfuck) + losing NORAD

Mexico: Free weed.

Gee, wonder which I'm opting for....

File: IMG_3009.jpg (535KB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 4256x2832px

>>32492417
A little off topic but say the US was invaded by a foreign country. Would Mexico even help. I know Canada would but Mexico is a wild card

>>32510784
Depends on the fact if the US were losing or not.

File: why not both.jpg (55KB, 625x430px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x430px

>>32492417

Off topic, but why hasn't Mexico bought into NORAD yet?

>>32510874
>NORAD
>Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
Wut

>>32510884
You know what I'm referring to, nigga.

>>32510898
Sigh, yes.

>>32492417
Please conquer Canada, I want cool guns like you guys...

>>32492459
>thinking lessons learned from the past don't count anymore
go, invade russia in winter, kid.

>>32493856
undderated

Mexico, if you kill the Canadians they win.

>>32492444
Magyar lies
Hungary is indomitable

File: 1483152922476.png (397KB, 700x712px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 700x712px

>ITT dumbfuck americucks

I can't tell you the amount of fun I would have during an Insurgency against the US on Canadian Soil?

You're telling me I can kill jarheadmcfatfuck without getting into trouble?

Fuck yeah.

>>32492686
>Culturally we are worlds apart.
kek

>>32513122
>t. Leaf who lives where 90%+ of all Leafs live

>>32492864
>U.S. aggression
uh, no

Both would be so absurdly easy for the US that there would be no real difference

>>32513122
edgy

File: tmp_26870--1821722356.png (718KB, 898x692px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 898x692px

>>32493606
>Fall back into colder climate.
Good they can stay there. Since they gave no infrastructure in the north, they have nothing to fall back to.

It's literally running out of your home to wait out a squatter during winter

/k/ is probably a terrible place to ask this, but what would the international reaction be if the US invaded either?
Would NATO side with Canada against the US? Would they send military help or just be politically aligned with them?
What would sanctions look like? Could the world afford to sanction the US?

File: chapultepec.jpg (384KB, 1200x674px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1200x674px

>>32492417
>>32506806
>>32500474
>>32496668
>>32495319
>>32492686
>>32513211
>>32492697
>>32496931
You guys severely underestimate Mexican patriotism. I have some Mexican family members and they hate the Mexican government but every single Mexican person loves their country. If the us would invade the insurgency would be 100x of what it was in Iraq. It would be like another Vietnam and most of latin america would support mexico.

>>32509191
Joke's on you, half of Canada's population is a direct descendant of Leo Major

File: This man thought he could fight america.jpg (151KB, 495x641px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 495x641px

>>32514683
>It would be like another Vietnam

You'll notice that Vietnam was a military wonder for American forces and they only reason they lost was because they never invaded North Vietnam to stop the problem at its source.

That problem wouldn't exist in a situation where America is invading the country in question.

Canada by a large margin. Mexico's government would be easy to topple. Hell a light breeze could probably blow it over at this point but they have a larger population, plenty of illegal arms that we'd have to find and unlike Canada all of Mexico is habitable which gives them a lot more area to fall back to even if they have less area overall. Canada is very centralized with the majority of the population living in a few places along the border. They'd be outnumbered greatly against an enemy that is better funded and better equipped and that can reinforce from anywhere in the country in hours. If Canada was even capable of making gains against the US they'd find themselves quickly overextended without significantly impacting the US's ability to wage war, when they lost ground however they have to fall back to less and less advantageous terrain with less capacity to support themselves and manufacture arms and ammunition. Couple that with the fact that there are far less illegal arms in Canada and they'd have a much harder time getting a full blown insurgency off the ground. I don't doubt that Canadians are patriotic nor that they'd fight like hell but it just wouldn't be enough. The economics of war are far too skewed against them. Mexico is a mess and it would be a mess we'd have to clean up which would take a lot of time and resources. We'd have all of the listed advantages against them but they have more population and more ability to retreat. The vast majority of Canada would be forced to capitulate fairly quickly. What would be left wouldn't be able to resist in quite the capacity that places like Vietnam or Afghanistan were. They'd probably get off a bombing or two no doubt but that'd be about it.

>>32492417
Canada, of course; it has lots of resources and few people. Frankly, the only reason Russia hasn't made this play is because the US is Canada's neighbor (plus the fact that Russia already has something like 1.3 uninhabited Canada-equivalents within its borders).

How would it work? The US would be able to launch a stealthy pincer attack from New England and... wait for it... Alaska (no one would see that coming). Plus, Quebec would probably rise in defiance in the vain hope that the US would grant them their freedom.

Just kidding. What would actually happen is that the US military would walk across the border and the Canadians would apologize for being in the way.

And besides, why would the US invade Mexico? What benefit would they get from that?

>>32492417
canadians would assimilate faster to american culture than mexicans

>>32518279

American culture is quickly becoming more and more hispanic

File: 1466805205260.png (265KB, 1190x714px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1190x714px

>>32518931
not really, most hispanics are concentrated in the West

>>32518931

Not really, I live in Texas and the most Hispanic thing I notice is tacos and Dos Xs

>>32492684
> not just killing them all for being non white savages

http://strategytheory.org/military/us/joint_board/Estimate%20of%20the%20Situation%20-%20Red%20and%20Tentative%20Joint%20Basic%20Plan%20-%20Red.pdf

>>32493346
America is NATO

Almost no NATO country spends the requested amount on their military.

>>32498022
Fuck JDAMS

Napalm would absolutely reek havoc on the favela looking shit.

>>32523064
Hey, you ain't me.

>>32507057
>Single drone run takes out half the population
>Invade with small army and take out the other half

File: Invasion of Canada.png (1003KB, 1280x948px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 1280x948px

Thread reminds me of Fallout

>"Our dedicated boys keep peace in newly annexed Canada."

>>32492417
Canada would be FAR easier.
In mexico, you not only have to deal with the mexican forces, it's full of cartels and unruly/uneducated people who've got nothing to lose. And people with nothing to lose will make your life hell in an occupation.

>>32507606
What about a mechanized invasion right along the border where EVERYTHING relevant is ?
Because that's what it is about : conquering the country.

Who care about a few hundred dudes playing rebels in the woods and mountains far north ?
Worst they could do would be to blow up a pipeline or disturb some mining operation.
Which would only give away their position and, since as you mentionned there ain't that many roads and cities, they would be easy preys.
During the winter, a drone can spot them using infrared and drop a missile.
While not cost-effective at first, those strikes will eventually cut down the pool of "true canadian patriots".

Invading Russia was difficult because, on top of the climate, there were millions of angry russians.
But if it's only a one week campaign to seize the cities along the border of Canada, the cold ain't even a factor.
Most canadians aren't hardcore woodsmen and they'll just submit if the yanks threaten to bomb their nice urban socialist paradise.

>>32492417
Noone lives in Canada lol. We should "liberate" the tiny population though because freedoms

Canada, Mexican drug cartels would put up a vicious insurgency as soon as their monopoly of power was threatened

>>32514683
If they love their country so much then why do they keep coming here

>>32493348
Pretty much this.

Canada is already basically a US protectorate. We sell them hardware, they don't even need a navy, and there are Canadian generals hanging out in NORAD right now.

America already tried to kill us Canadians, lost in 1812. Those damn beaners couldn't fight if they wanted to

>>32508386
>Amerilard advocating genocide
>Wonders why no one likes them

File: rcmp1.jpg (73KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x800px

Americans OUT

>>32526216

We can always go over and burn down their white house for a second time. Things would be very historical.

>>32492417
>Militarily
Mexico. We've tackled populous shitholes before. Sure, the following occupations have gone sideways on us, but for the most part steamrolling their military hasn't been too much of an issue when we actually have the will to do so (and no bullshit diplomatic restraint like in Korea and Vietnam).

But a broad, empty void like Canada... that's uncharted territory for the US military.

The Cartels have literally more weapons and are better funded than the Taliban and isis. And we all know how well Americans fully armed fully geared man childs do agains farmers with AKs in the middle east.

Canada is just cold.

My vote goes to Canada.

>>32526566
Its easy to steamroll an enemy when the enemy is underfunded and you have more forces anon. But this is isn't the 1800s and the mexican army isnt showing up in white slacks and bandolearos.