Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexashka | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?

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.

The times are wild enough that I first checked if Trump had been making any moves on Iceland, just in case I had missed something...

Should the whole of the military quit because the American people were x enough to elect Trump?

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...

Greenland (Denmark) did respond: by shipping blood bags to Greenland and scheduling military exercises to practise blowing up runways. And they did so in a way that would be noticeable.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/19/denmark-prepar...

The only thing a militarily weaker power can do is signal the clear intent to die defending territory where necessary.

The fact that this actually happened — that an ally felt it necessary — is the shame of the USA, IMO.

In much the same way that I (as a Brit) don't think my fellow countrymen understand the extent to which the British are loathed (especially in America), I don't really think many Americans fully understand who/what America is now, to the rest of the world, or what will be necessary to change that perception.

There is a Godwin in there somewhere.

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"?

It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.

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.

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.

So rather than wanting to kill the USA, they merely want to bring it down? That sounds like a distinction without a difference if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist.

I would say "down with Palantir". That doesn't mean I want every member of that organization dead. In the same way, it's absolutely fine to say down with a state. States/corporations don't have rights. People do.

As I said, if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist. I concede nothing. I doubt you'll find a single loyal military in the world that would be content for its country to fall to some random aggressor. It's the entire point.

Like ... death to traffic.

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?

I agree that blindly assuming that all "adversaries" of the U.S. (per labeling by the U.S. government) want to kill us. But it does seem that some indeed do. It would further seem that proportionate countermeasures would be appropriate for those cases.

If they have no practical way of acting on the chant, then it's just bluster.

Yeah

To the younger generations it's just political theatre and gets laughed at as being the equivalent of boomer cringe

A bit of an unconstructive, unwarranted jab, if I may say so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com