In the interests of national security we should always have a plan to seize the Panama Canal because of its strategic importance during a war. It would be irresponsible to not have such a plan.
But this is irresponsible on a completely different level. This is “let’s invade Iraq” level stupidity. Trump ran on not having started any wars in his prior term. He ran on ending existing wars. Now that he is in he has talked about starting wars with all our neighbors and other allies. He doesn’t call them wars but that’s what they would be.
Here is a map of each place he has threatened. Instead of protecting our national security he is a threat to it. The president is a threat to national security. We got here because the cult of personality was determined to defeat the opposition even if they destroyed themselves in the process. They have fucked us all to own the libs. Even if Trump left office today it would take us decades to recover from the damage he has done to us.
“Panama should abandon its accommodating policy towards the U.S., which can only lead to escalating demands”
Why do countries have to figure this out so slowly
The US is threatening to invade a democratic nation and nobody seems to care. Where are all the freedom loving dudebros on this? Subjugating free countries is okay now? This is so exhausting
Unless someone is in the military and has access to the things, there is fuck all we as citizens can do.
Checks instance name
Best we can hope for is Trump getting too distracted playing Minecraft to pay any attention to Panama.
The US is threatening to invade a democratic nation and nobody seems to care.
I mean, we’re here discussing why it’s wrong.
They’ve been subjugating the Middle East to their bullshit for half a century, it’s a normal day at this point
And Africa, Central and South America, Asia and basically everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
First time?
Right? We should focus on Iraq…
Watch for any movement / build up of troops. He could still be bluffing here, but this is more than what he’s done for other places as far as I’m aware. His actions and orders from here out will be much more telling than any of his words will be
The minute we set foot in a sovereign country with intent to seize, we’ll be sanctioned into the ground by NATO. It will be completely warranted, yet Trump will somehow convince MAGA that they’re ‘attacking’ us economically.
Of all the people to blindly believe and follow, why him? Absolutely nothing I’ve seen about him even hints a wisp of “you can trust me” vibe. Did he do something amazing on The Apprentice? I never watched that screen feces, so I don’t know what was portrayed. I can only assume it was something spellbinding and miraculous based on the cultist compulsion millions of human brains seem to exhibit.
Or did they all just hate Hillary Clinton or Obama SO MUCH that it permanently broke their brains?
He tells the shitty people that their hate is good and proper, so they convince themselves that his actions are correct.
Or did they all just hate Hillary Clinton or Obama SO MUCH that it permanently broke their brains?
don’t underestimate how incredibly racist and sexist some parts of the states are
Of all the people to blindly believe and follow, why him?
Trump openly promises fascism in terms stupid enough that fascists can understand.
There’s not much more to it.
I assume you mean a western country with intent to seize, because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO supported those campaigns.
To be clear, NATO had no role in the invasion of Iraq, but UK and some other NATO members were part of the coalition.
I did mean seize, not invade. I fixed the comment. Thank you for the correction.
Then Trump will be legally allowed to invade the hague.
“The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The American Service-Members’ Protection Act authorizes the President of the United States to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This authorization led to the act being nicknamed “The Hague Invasion Act”,[4] since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.[5]”
EDIT - While I realize this doesn’t apply to sanctions, it still sets a scary precedent for checking USA’s actions.
Does the term “legally” even matter in US politics anymore?
International law couldnt give a fuck about that. That’s like saying Russia could legally invade Ukraine if they have a law saying it’s okay.
NATO can’t sanction the US.
Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.
While NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, it does not mandate a specific response, but rather each member decides what actions it deems necessary to assist the attacked member.
Besides, Panama is not a NATO member.
That clause is null and void between member states to prevent a WW1 situation.
Also, Panama isn’t a member and would be defending, not invading.
that’s not really relevant here since panama isn’t a NATO member
That’s true. It would apply to Canada and Denmark though.
NATO members can though
Sure, but they won’t.
