This is a fact.
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) December 23, 2024
We aren’t taking the canal back from Panama.
We are taking it back from China. https://t.co/VxmdUEcOnI
and we won't.KaiBear said:
Don't pretend to know enough about the current relationship between the Panama Canal Authority and China at this point to make any reasonable comment.
However the Canal remains vital to the strategic interests of the United States.
Would be foolish to relinquish our access to the canal without a fight.
Mostly true, but the dirty little secret is that it happened under Trump b/c he didn't give a s _ _ _ and let China exert its influence. My employer and many others worked hard to get Trump to focus on this, but he flat refused.Redbrickbear said:This is a fact.
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) December 23, 2024
We aren’t taking the canal back from Panama.
We are taking it back from China. https://t.co/VxmdUEcOnI
Liteitup said:
So what you guys are saying is that any treaty the US signed in the past is worthless if DJT disapproves?
Treaty requires senate approval (2/3 I think). That said, if counter-party to the treaty had arguably breached it by, say, giving de facto control of the canal to China, I'd guess our State Department could take some level of action without having to go back through the entire Senate process, but eventually you'd need 2/3 Senate approval again to officially revoke the treaty.Liteitup said:
So what you guys are saying is that any treaty the US signed in the past is worthless if DJT disapproves?
boognish_bear said:
KaiBear said:
Don't pretend to know enough about the current relationship between the Panama Canal Authority and China at this point to make any reasonable comment.
However the Canal remains vital to the strategic interests of the United States.
Would be foolish to relinquish our access to the canal without a fight.
Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024
Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him.
Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM
Denmark can't defend Greenland.boognish_bear said:Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024
Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him.
Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM
The Galapagos is, like Greenland, an unsinkable aircraft carrier of comparable distance from US borders. The difference is this: Galapagos is astride the western approaches to the Panama Canal, while Greenland has a contiguous border with a Nato ally and is a wedge sitting astride lines of communication WITHIN Nato. Greenland also is an asset in bringing pressure to bear on Russia, while Galapagos poses no threat at all to any of our adversaries. Finally, Russia could not support a presence on Galapagos, but it could easily do so with essentially contiguous Greenland.fubar said:
Ecuador can't defend the Galapagos.
The Galapagos can't defend the Galapagos.
The Galapagos can only be defended by the US.
Cowabunga! Let's goooooo ......
for once, we're not offering to help them. We're talking about doing something good for us, for a change. That is indeed super cool.fubar said:
Neither has mentioned either needing or wanting our "help," but who cares about such?
Let's rename that big island TRUMPland. That'd be super cool.
We are so back!!! pic.twitter.com/PvybVULeAz
— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) December 24, 2024
whiterock said:Denmark can't defend Greenland.boognish_bear said:Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024
Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him.
Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.
So why shouldn't we own it?
That's the rationale......
Thank you.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Denmark can't defend Greenland.boognish_bear said:Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024
Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him.
Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.
So why shouldn't we own it?
That's the rationale......
Stupid rational.
The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.
KaiBear said:whiterock said:Denmark can't defend Greenland.boognish_bear said:Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024
Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him.
Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.
So why shouldn't we own it?
That's the rationale......
Stupid rational.
The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.