Cattivo Strega ✅bonafide🇨🇦#canada #🇨🇦
Stop saying annexation.
It’s an invasion. They want to invade our country.
The word “annexation” is drawn from the double speak used by Russia.
KChernecky For Democracy@theteapixie trump wants to invade Canada. Please know Americans do not.
Paul Lalonde@PeasLuvnJustice @theteapixie don't worry, he'll convince enough Americans to do it.
Fix your country.
Fix your country.
Sheldon@PeasLuvnJustice that might make you or me feel better, but it doesn’t help Canada.
We’re the bad guys now. All of us are on the wrong side (even if unwillingly) until we fix it.
There are no three sided wars. WE are the invaders.
Der Zarte Kulturträger@PeasLuvnJustice @theteapixie “It is Putin’s war” as russians tend to repeat
Radiojane" annexation
noun [ C or U ]
uk
possession taken of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission:"
Annexation is the correct word.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/annexation
Grant@Radiojane @theteapixie Didn't say annexation was inaccurate, just to stop using the word.
Invasion has the proper connotation. It gets the point across.
Marquise de What 🇨🇦@theteapixie Couldn't agree more. 'Annexation' is misleading because its denotation is more neutral than the actual connotation within these circumstances.
Amgine>
Etymology 2
From Middle English annexen, anexen, from Old French annexer (“to join”), from Medieval Latin annexāre, infinitive of annexō, frequentative of Latin annectō (“bind to”), from ad (“to”) + nectō (“tie, bind”).
>
Gary Houston@theteapixie it's a process, invasion, conquest, annexation.
skry@theteapixie There are probably fewer than a dozen people in the US who want to invade Canada, but unfortunately they control the US military. This is a terrible thing for everyone. We all have to oppose it fiercely.
Rusty RingSpecifically, they want to invade, occupy, and extinguish Canada.
This is not the kind of thing that can be wished away, and something that must never be forgiven or forgotten in future diplomacy. Canada's founders predicted this.
Nicole ParsonsThe only policy position to come out of the Rubio-Lavrov meeting in Riyadh was a Pact for "Joint Arctic Energy Projects".
It's very similar in intent to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact over Poland in 1939
ExxonMobil spent a lot of money on bribing... ahem.. financing Republican election wins
ExxonMobil is preparing to trigger an attack on a NATO ally to please Putin.
https://fpa.org/exxon-mobil-wins-russian-arctic-contract/
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/russia-in-the-arctica-critical-examination?lang=en
HilaryThe intention is annexation. Unless Canada agrees to this (which I assume and hope it won't) invasion will be needed in order to pursue the intended annexation. Both words have their place, and should be used correctly.
Not all invasions are aimed at annexation and annexation may, at least in theory, be achieved without invasion.
johnaldis@theteapixie “Annexation” sounds worse than “invasion” to me tbh. You can have a good “invasion” but “annexation” is always bad. Invasion is one way to describe the liberation of Europe, for example—the Allies invaded France etc to free it from Nazi occupation. But you wouldn’t say Britain “annexed” France. I might say that’s what Nazi Germany did.
Absolutely totally this. My father invaded Normandy and from there other parts of Western Europe. Like much of the British Army he ended up in Hamburg.
That was a lot of invading. For the right reasons. And no annexing at all.
Canadian Crone