United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted his country is “not at war” with Canada, then proceeded to mock the threat Canada could pose to his country with “submarines from the Edmonton mall.”

The secretary also suggested Prime Minister Mark Carney was to blame for the current “political shouting match” between the two countries because keeping the fight alive is good for his poll numbers.

Bessent made the remarks Monday in an interview with the U.S. cable news network CNBC, where he was asked if his country is now in a trade war with Canada.

“Well, I don’t think you can be in a tit for tat with someone that’s 13 times larger than you are,” he said.

“I mean we’re not at war with Canada. How are we going to be at war with Canada? What, are they going to take their two submarines from the Edmonton mall and sic them on us?”

    • BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not talking about a study, which means you (hopefully) misunderstood my comment. But thank you!

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sorry; we are talking about a specific study done by the canadian armed forces - slightly different from what you’re discussing. Said study did indeed address what you’re describing however! One of the scenarios for the civil-war-triggering military action was the annexation/secession/alberta-ness, which would need to be backed by the US military (given that all but the southern edge would be a strategic nightmare to hold, especially when surrounded on three sides).

        I’m not sure there’s many parallels between hawaii and alberta, but I am super curious what you mean!

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I think… Yes? I’m a tad confused, I confess: I don’t think anyone here has misunderstood anything.

            • BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              A few comments implied I was referencing or talking about a study. I didn’t understand why they thought I was, because I wasn’t.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Ah, I see. Sorry for any confusion, I just meant we were talking about a specific study.

                • BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Then I guess the confusion isn’t recoverable and we just have to accept that we can’t communicate.

                  Sorry if I wasted your time, please have a great rest of your week.