Jump to content

America's Foreign Policy & Other Shit Going On Around the World thread


bolverk

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Goredho said:

How long has Denmark “owned” Greenland?  Why has it not been a threat to the U.S. before now?

Greenland was also part of the Kingdom of Norway, later joined to Denmark, for almost 500 years. The Norse lost contact and the presence died out. 
 

It will never not be funny that the Norse were in Greenland before the Inuit and have a longer historical presence all together even with a few centuries gap. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yeah, um...

Poulsen said the package would allow for the purchase of two new inspection ships, two new long-range drones and two extra dog sled teams.

Increase of $1.5 billion.

It would also include funding for increased staffing at Arctic Command in the capital Nuuk and an upgrade for one of Greenland's three main civilian airports to handle F-35 supersonic fighter aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Cool, thanks.

And even back in the 1980's a book that came out every year called Soviet Military Power would talk about that region. There is an area between Europe and Greenland we liked to use to catch ruski subs when they are not sinking. I am sure some of our Navy buddies on here can elaborate. But that was a premise for Soviet Doctrine for a long time. Knock out Iceland and Greenland and let the subs hunt. A reason we still have Thule AB and presence in Iceland.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

This stop being obtuse. Politics isn't news. News doesn't have to be political but all politics is political. 

Read this again and tell us it isn't newsworthy.

He refused to rule out using military force to retake the Panama Canal, which was given back to Panama by treaty in the late 1990s, and acquire Greenland, which Mr. Trump said was necessary for the national security of the United States.

I guess since an invasion of Panama or Greenland would be "political," we won't be able to post about in the DT.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

And even back in the 1980's a book that came out every year called Soviet Military Power would talk about that region. There is an area between Europe and Greenland we liked to use to catch ruski subs when they are not sinking. I am sure some of our Navy buddies on here can elaborate. But that was a premise for Soviet Doctrine for a long time. Knock out Iceland and Greenland and let the subs hunt. A reason we still have Thule AB and presence in Iceland.

It made no sense to expend significant resources on Greenland prior to melting polar ice, beyond the mentioned early warning AFB and monitoring/potential ASW.  Any “invasion force” or even reconnaissance vessels would be forced to approach via North Atlantic approaches (or, I suppose from the South Atlantic or through the canal although that’s loony-tunes far-fetched). These new concerns are real with warming sea ice, although it’s not really the fear of an invasion but rather free use of potential Arctic navigation.

But that has to be divorced from this idea because none of the security issues arise from the Danes controlling Greenland or are solved by us controlling Greenland.  It’s a naked resource grab and it’s completely insane, we can’t let Real Serious Foreign Policy assholes sanewash DJT. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Increase of $1.5 billion.

It would also include funding for increased staffing at Arctic Command in the capital Nuuk and an upgrade for one of Greenland's three main civilian airports to handle F-35 supersonic fighter aircraft.

If they bought the marine version of the F-35 would not need to upgrade....

And what are they going to do with 1.5B? A shit ton of consultants? What manpower do they have? Going to go this route?

image.jpeg.cf870f74016d71db6e6a53c1489aae06.jpeg

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, immamac said:

This stop being obtuse. Politics isn't news. News doesn't have to be political but all politics is political. 

I really don't understand how you can say this with a straight face.

Where's the line? Anything any government does or any politician says/does is completely off-limits? The Hartzell thread in DT is literally filled with a political opinion in almost every post, yet it hasn't been moved.

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One entirely foreseeable and not far-fetched idea would be the invitation of Russian or PRC troops by other Western Hemisphere nations to deter any similar U.S. aggressive action. 

LO Fucking L. I really fucking doubt it. Neither could sustain a move like that. And who? What countries would do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

LO Fucking L. I really fucking doubt it. Neither could sustain a move like that. And who? What countries would do that?

 

4 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

The Panama Canal thing would likely invite China.  I can’t see them leaving that alone.  Too much cargo from Brazil.  

It wouldn't shock me if Mexico did. After all, Trump has mused about sending in the military to take out the cartels.

Edit: This is in reference to China, not Russia.

Edited by bolverk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

LO Fucking L. I really fucking doubt it. Neither could sustain a move like that. And who? What countries would do that?

Venezuela. Nicaragua. Bolivia.

It wouldn’t be Rammstein. But a company?  Some trainers and advisors?  Some PMC mopes? That can easily be sustained and changes dynamics in a big way. The same way putting a company in Western Ukraine in January 22 would have changed the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I really don't understand how you can say this with a straight face.

Where's the line? Anything any government does or any politician says/does is completely off-limits? The Hartzell thread in DT is literally filled with a political opinion in almost every post, yet it hasn't been moved.

That's news. It's not politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Venezuela. Nicaragua. Bolivia.

It wouldn’t be Rammstein. But a company?  Some trainers and advisors?  Some PMC mopes? That can easily be sustained and changes dynamics in a big way. The same way putting a company in Western Ukraine in January 22 would have changed the game. 

Already there. And what? And would it have in Ukraine? Don't think so.

And are any of those countries on the list? Could we have not done that in the 1980's when Cubans were all over Nicaragua?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

The Panama Canal thing would likely invite China.  I can’t see them leaving that alone.  Too much cargo from Brazil.  

Nope. And China is building a highway into a massive port in Peru for that cargo. They are also wary of the canal.

You all seem to forget the kids of the Rich in Latin America, who are those in power (except for the oligarchies) don't want to go to Beijing. They prefer Miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Already there. And what? And would it have in Ukraine? Don't think so.

And are any of those countries on the list? Could we have not done that in the 1980's when Cubans were all over Nicaragua?

If there had been a company of American soldiers at Vasilkyiv in 2022 and we told Putin “you wanna kill Americans? Bring it.” That would have been a complete game changer. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nicaragua canal

Spoiler
By bne IntelliNews November 20, 2024

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has unveiled plans for a 445-kilometre interoceanic waterway that would provide an alternative to the congested Panama Canal, presenting the proposal to Chinese investors at a regional business summit.

The new route would connect the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, beginning at a planned deep-water port in Bluefields on the Caribbean coast. The canal would traverse northern Nicaragua via Lake Xolotlan (also known as Lake Managua) before reaching the Pacific through Puerto Corinto.

The announcement comes as the Panama Canal, which handles around 5% of global seaborne trade, faces significant challenges with water levels and vessel traffic, leading to lengthy delays. "Every day it becomes more complicated to pass through Panama," Ortega told delegates at the XVII China-Latin America and the Caribbean Business Summit in Managua, which drew representatives from 29 countries.

The Panama Canal has experienced a 29% decrease in ship transits over the past fiscal year due to severe drought conditions, according to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). From October 2023 to September 2024, only 9,944 vessels passed through the canal, compared to 14,080 the previous year.

Nicaragua's ambitious project represents a shift from a previous canal initiative. In May, the government revoked a controversial concession granted to Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development (HKND) Group, which had proposed a different route through Lake Cocibolca.

As part of the new proposal, the Chinese company CAMC has signed a contract with Nicaragua's Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for the construction of the Bluefields port facility.

The canal project would comprise four segments, with Ortega suggesting it could attract investment from both Chinese and American businesses. He referenced historical precedent for the undertaking, noting that the United States had considered building a Nicaraguan canal as far back as 1854.

Environmental and financial analysts have previously questioned the feasibility of such projects in Nicaragua. However, the government maintains that the infrastructure development would boost regional trade and economic growth.

The initiative emerges as Nicaragua seeks to position itself as a crucial link in global maritime trade, though specific details about funding and environmental impact assessments have yet to be revealed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

nicaragua canal

  Hide contents
By bne IntelliNews November 20, 2024

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has unveiled plans for a 445-kilometre interoceanic waterway that would provide an alternative to the congested Panama Canal, presenting the proposal to Chinese investors at a regional business summit.

The new route would connect the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, beginning at a planned deep-water port in Bluefields on the Caribbean coast. The canal would traverse northern Nicaragua via Lake Xolotlan (also known as Lake Managua) before reaching the Pacific through Puerto Corinto.

The announcement comes as the Panama Canal, which handles around 5% of global seaborne trade, faces significant challenges with water levels and vessel traffic, leading to lengthy delays. "Every day it becomes more complicated to pass through Panama," Ortega told delegates at the XVII China-Latin America and the Caribbean Business Summit in Managua, which drew representatives from 29 countries.

The Panama Canal has experienced a 29% decrease in ship transits over the past fiscal year due to severe drought conditions, according to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). From October 2023 to September 2024, only 9,944 vessels passed through the canal, compared to 14,080 the previous year.

Nicaragua's ambitious project represents a shift from a previous canal initiative. In May, the government revoked a controversial concession granted to Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development (HKND) Group, which had proposed a different route through Lake Cocibolca.

As part of the new proposal, the Chinese company CAMC has signed a contract with Nicaragua's Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for the construction of the Bluefields port facility.

The canal project would comprise four segments, with Ortega suggesting it could attract investment from both Chinese and American businesses. He referenced historical precedent for the undertaking, noting that the United States had considered building a Nicaraguan canal as far back as 1854.

Environmental and financial analysts have previously questioned the feasibility of such projects in Nicaragua. However, the government maintains that the infrastructure development would boost regional trade and economic growth.

The initiative emerges as Nicaragua seeks to position itself as a crucial link in global maritime trade, though specific details about funding and environmental impact assessments have yet to be revealed.

 

It was the original plan. Then we were able to get Panama easier. There are some real problem with the Nica Canal. One is environmental. There would not be any locks.

 

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Don't give him any ideas pls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was just going to ask.... about the israel-hamas thread in dt

in the same news conference today on foreign policy topics that discussed greenland and panama, the statement was made that the hostages held by hamas have to be released before the innauguration.... or else

now, if someone copies the words spoken verbatim and without comment pastes them in the dt israel-hamas thread, does that require the move of that thread to cr?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about fucking done with you people telling me how to run my message board. 

Jay hartzel thing is news. 

Israel Hamas has a CR thread for political topics related to the fucking news of the god damned war which is the news thread. 

See the above. 

I don't know what that thread even is, who cares?

Same as above

Same as above

Fitlump was a meme made by surly and it was something no one gives a shit about in a real politics of Austin sense its more of a lulz/news topic here. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm about fucking done with you people telling me how to run my message board. 

Jay hartzel thing is news. 

Israel Hamas has a CR thread for political topics related to the fucking news of the god damned war which is the news thread. 

See the above. 

I don't know what that thread even is, who cares?

Same as above

Same as above

Fitlump was a meme made by surly and it was something no one gives a shit about in a real politics of Austin sense its more of a lulz/news topic here. 

 

It's just that no one understands the standard. You seem to think everyone that brings this up is trolling you or something. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not trying to bust your balls here, because I've been genuinely confused at some level about what is allowed to be discussed in the DT from literally day one and I know for a fact I'm hardly the only one.

There have been threads moved from DT->CR before that are not inherently political but quickly become filled with political opinions (a la the Hartzel thread, though I would argue that University presidents are effectively politicians but that's another discussion).

Saying "politics isn't news" is just a nonsense statement and it just makes every thing murkier.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's just that no one understands the standard. You seem to think everyone that brings this up is trolling you or something. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not trying to bust your balls here, because I've been genuinely confused at some level about what is allowed to be discussed in the DT from literally day one and I know for a fact I'm hardly the only one.

There have been threads moved from DT->CR before that are not inherently political but quickly become filled with political opinions (a la the Hartzel thread, though I would argue that University presidents are effectively politicians but that's another discussion).

Saying "politics isn't news" is just a nonsense statement and it just makes every thing murkier.

Because I don't read those shit ass threads and neither should you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm about fucking done with you people telling me how to run my message board. 

Jay hartzel thing is news. 

Israel Hamas has a CR thread for political topics related to the fucking news of the god damned war which is the news thread. 

See the above. 

I don't know what that thread even is, who cares?

Same as above

Same as above

Fitlump was a meme made by surly and it was something no one gives a shit about in a real politics of Austin sense its more of a lulz/news topic here. 

 

page what do you mean GIF

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Carter turned the Panama canal over to Panama was because it was costing the US, not only a ton of money, but also a lot of lives to maintain control and operate it. It wasn't worth the hassle anymore. 

That was a US that's far more financially solvent than today. So of course, let's spend another trillion and more dead American soldiers occupying Panama. 

Not to mention, this immediately sets the world stage for every power to fight over any lands close to them they wish to invade. Taiwan being the most obvious. 

Just incredibly stupid and potentially nuclear holocaust level dangerous. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mchookem said:

i hope this thread stays in DT. i think a thread like this is good as a simple 'FYI' in a forum where a lot of posters fall into the 'i dont pay attention to anything until 10/15 every four years bc politics is like super annoying and has no bearing on real life so shut up and go back to the cloak room!!' category. which is a significant reason why we have ended up with a president-elect laying out these plans. so don't debate here...but try to at least be aware of what is happening because it does, in fact, have direct bearing on real lives. 

or you know, whatever. 

200w(13).gif.ec4bfbac08434cbd845650bff281d6e7.gif9792500e5b4915dfc021fc83e5147a31_4675881bcb94d598a4f1af336653b11c.jpg.4863a13c7ae89683d9d325c124b1b6ba.jpg

This was the best reason to keep it in DT but it was always going to end up here eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

The reason Carter turned the Panama canal over to Panama was because it was costing the US, not only a ton of money, but also a lot of lives to maintain control and operate it. It wasn't worth the hassle anymore. 

That was a US that's far more financially solvent than today. So of course, let's spend another trillion and more dead American soldiers occupying Panama. 

Not to mention, this immediately sets the world stage for every power to fight over any lands close to them they wish to invade. Taiwan being the most obvious. 

Just incredibly stupid and potentially nuclear holocaust level dangerous. 

Lives? After construction? I was there quite a bit during the 1980's never once heard that. Nor during any of my Central America classes at UT. And yes, misguided was UT as Panama is not part of Central America.

Got a source?

Also, is the cost just the canal or also DOD's presence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Politics is, of course, news. I respect your decision regarding this site, but disagree with your comment.

Yeah but cloak room is for all political discussion. DT is for news. I didn't day politics isn't news, but news can be completely apolitical politics can't be by definition that's what I meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

EDIT:
This thread had been posted in the Daily Texan, but Immamac thinks discussing the acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland (by force, if necessary, according to Trump) is "politics" but not "news".

 

This isn’t a Cloak Room thread to debate the incoming Administration’s foreign policies. Instead, it’s a news thread about statements/threats made and actions taken. It’s not about what’s right or wrong, nor is it about what’s smart or foolish.

I fully realize some might not like discussing (or even seeing) this topic in the Daily Texan, but the future president of the United States outlined a rather aggressive foreign policy for when he takes office in a watershed news conference earlier today.

This is quite simply news about how our country relates to the world and how others respond: actions, reactions, and consequences.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/us/politics/trump-panama-canal-greenland.html?smid=url-share
President-elect Donald J. Trump refused to rule out on Tuesday the use of military or economic coercion to force Panama to give up control of the canal that America built more than a century ago, and to force Denmark to sell Greenland to the United States.

In an hourlong news conference at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump also reiterated his threat that “all hell will break out in the Middle East” if the hostages being held by Hamas are not released by Inauguration Day, repeating the threat four times.

“If they’re not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East,” he told reporters. “And it will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone. All hell will break out. I don’t have to say anymore, but that’s what it is.”

*****

He refused to rule out using military force to retake the Panama Canal, which was given back to Panama by treaty in the late 1990s, and acquire Greenland, which Mr. Trump said was necessary for the national security of the United States.

“It might be that you’ll have to do something,” he said.

*****
 At one point, he suggested that his administration will rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

*****

He also repeated his threat not to protect NATO allies, a foundational part of the pact, if they did not increase the amount of money they spend on defense of their own countries.

At one point, he appeared to confirm a recent story in the Financial Times suggesting that he wants NATO countries to commit to spending up to 5 percent of their economic output on defense, a significant increase.

He also criticized Canada, saying that the country should be a state in the United States because of the economic support that the United States provides to the country. He said he would not use military power to achieve that but said that he would use economic power to pressure the American neighbor.

“Why are we supporting a country, 200 million-plus a year?” he told reporters, and then referred to the country’s prime minister. “Our military is at their disposal — all of these other things. They should be a state. That’s what I told Trudeau when he came down.”

Mr. Trump threatened to use “economic force” to join Canada and the United States together, implying that the United States would pare back its purchases of Canadian products.

He also said he would “tariff Denmark at a very high level” if it does not give Greenland to the United States.

It’s probably political because Trump is a raging douchebag who talks a lot of shit just to suck up all the media attention and get people to talk about the latest bullshit to come out of his fat ugly mug. The media, and everyone else, can’t resist responding to every outrageous, stupid, arrogant, ignorant, racist, bigoted, reckless, thoughtless, foolish, treasonous, traitorous, corrupt, criminal, ugly, hateful thought that crosses his mind and gets injected directly into our information stream wherever we find it unless we’ve completely unplugged ourselves from all awareness of the world around us.

It sucks but it doesn’t warrant a thread in the current events board until he actually does something. He’s the world’s greatest bullshitter. Maybe we should focus just on the stupid, dangerous, harmful, illegal, treacherous, unconstitutional, criminal shit he actually does and keep the rest, as toxic and despicable as it is, on the back burner until it crosses the line from rhetoric to reality. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Lives? After construction? I was there quite a bit during the 1980's never once heard that. Nor during any of my Central America classes at UT. And yes, misguided was UT as Panama is not part of Central America.

Got a source?

Also, is the cost just the canal or also DOD's presence?

The Panamanians came to really resent the US control over the canal by the mid 20th century. There were several instances of skirmishes costing some soldiers their lives, the biggest and most well known being the 1964 Panama uprising that killed 4 US soldiers.

By the 1970s it had become much more like a hostile occupation, and it wasn't worth the cost in finances and human lives to continue to fight over it with the Panamanians. It was also on the verge of being a major diplomatic black eye on the US back when our political leaders cared about being perceived as hostile bullies. 

Military officials advised Carter it could take up to 100,000 US troops to adequately occupy the canal and defend against a full blown uprising. 

Imagine what to would take now to invade Panama and hold control against what will surely be a full scale uprising against enemy invaders. All for what? Because trump doesn't like shipping costs?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It’s probably political because Trump is a raging douchebag who talks a lot of shit just to suck up all the media attention and get people to talk about the latest bullshit to come out of his fat ugly mug. The media, and everyone else, can’t resist responding to every outrageous, stupid, arrogant, ignorant, racist, bigoted, reckless, thoughtless, foolish, treasonous, traitorous, corrupt, criminal, ugly, hateful thought that crosses his mind and gets injected directly into our information stream wherever we find it unless we’ve completely unplugged ourselves from all awareness of the world around us.

It sucks but it doesn’t warrant a thread in the current events board until he actually does something. He’s the world’s greatest bullshitter. Maybe we should focus just on the stupid, dangerous, harmful, illegal, treacherous, unconstitutional, criminal shit he actually does and keep the rest, as toxic and despicable as it is, on the back burner until it crosses the line from rhetoric to reality. 

 

giphy (1) (3).gif

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the deal. 
 

The only real news on this is what Trump has spouted off and how a few parties have responded. So once that is basically posted this isn’t some rapidly developing manhunt/wildfire/shooting/attack/etc to provide fast moving news updates on. Forgoing that unless you want this thread to be a few posts then At THIS point it’s gonna have to turn political because on this topic there is no “news”

Edited by Surly Bevo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

The Panamanians came to really resent the US control over the canal by the mid 20th century. There were several instances of skirmishes costing some soldiers their lives, the biggest and most well known being the 1964 Panama uprising that killed 4 US soldiers.

By the 1970s it had become much more like a hostile occupation, and it wasn't worth the cost in finances and human lives to continue to fight over it with the Panamanians. It was also on the verge of being a major diplomatic black eye on the US back when our political leaders cared about being perceived as hostile bullies. 

Military officials advised Carter it could take up to 100,000 US troops to adequately occupy the canal and defend against a full blown uprising. 

Imagine what to would take now to invade Panama and hold control against what will surely be a full scale uprising against enemy invaders. All for what? Because trump doesn't like shipping costs?

For the record, I dated Torrijos' Granddaughter so have had a few discussions with the family about the canal. Never once did resentment come up over the canal. Resentment was over disparity in wealth between the US, the other Expats, and the average Panamanian who COULD NOT get a job in the Canal Zone.

1- 4 soldiers is not a lot. Sorry, but it is not. More would die fishing every year in the canal. Or getting drunk downtown Colon.

2- Correct, Carter did not want to be seen as a bully, but the world already saw us like that or they did not.

3-BS. They had Vietnam on the brain. Have you been to the canal? You don't need to control shit but the locks. An insurgency would not take it down. The Canal Zone was very self contained.

4- Probably take a few brigades if the goal is just keep it open and we forget all the nation building, force American ways BS.

5- This ain't about shipping costs. It is about ego.

Mind citing some sources? I am quite interested in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Here’s the deal. 
 

The only real news on this is what Trump has spouted off. So once that is basically posted this isn’t some developing manhunt/wildfire/shooting/attack/etc to provide fast moving news updates on. Forgoing that unless you want this thread to be a few posts the. At THIS point it’s gonna have to turn political because on this topic there is no “news”

i am totally lost

panama and greenland discussion = political

what the fuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

@bolverk

Good try. There are some things I think are quite important that we continue to tie in with admins vs. events. I always wanted Global Spring to be more active.

Thanks, Inka. My intent was to have an ongoing discussion about US foreign relations (not troll the board) because a) the subject matter interests me (it was one of my 2 minors) and b) I think it's going to be in the news a lot over the next few years as I expect our foreign policy will see some radical changes. 

I was doing my best to stick with mainstream sources and edited my copy/pastes to avoid any unnecessary or opinionated commentary. Folks were responding and behaving pretty well, too. I acknowledge that it can be tricky to discuss without going full CR, but I really wanted it to focus mostly on providing/sharing information.

I'll likely continue to post relevant content here as I come across it, though.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

For the record, I dated Torrijos' Granddaughter so have had a few discussions with the family about the canal. Never once did resentment come up over the canal. Resentment was over disparity in wealth between the US, the other Expats, and the average Panamanian who COULD NOT get a job in the Canal Zone.

1- 4 soldiers is not a lot. Sorry, but it is not. More would die fishing every year in the canal. Or getting drunk downtown Colon.

2- Correct, Carter did not want to be seen as a bully, but the world already saw us like that or they did not.

3-BS. They had Vietnam on the brain. Have you been to the canal? You don't need to control shit but the locks. An insurgency would not take it down. The Canal Zone was very self contained.

4- Probably take a few brigades if the goal is just keep it open and we forget all the nation building, force American ways BS.

5- This ain't about shipping costs. It is about ego.

Mind citing some sources? I am quite interested in this.

I've said what I know about it. The cost in lives was more about what was to come if hostilities kept escalating over it. Was it overblown by military brass or Carter? Could be so. I have no idea what extent the tensions would have escalated, how the Soviet Union may or may not have been able to take advantage of the situation, or many of the other factors at play in the mid 1970s. 

What I do know is jumping into that hornet's nest today for no good reason would be the epitome of trump stupidity and an additional giant waste of resources. I have a nephew who is about to complete year 1 in the army, and although I spoke my objections based on this very scenario of a warmongering trump getting back in office, his veteran step dad convinced him otherwise. I really hope he makes it 4 years, but having to deal with him getting killed invading Panama would make family events quite weird. And I'd keep the "I told you idiots so" to myself although we'd all know it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Thanks, Inka. My intent was to have an ongoing discussion about US foreign relations (not troll the board) because a) the subject matter interests me (it was one of my 2 minors) and b) I think it's going to be in the news a lot over the next few years as I expect our foreign policy will see some radical changes. 

I was doing my best to stick with mainstream sources and edited my copy/pastes to avoid any unnecessary or opinionated commentary. Folks were responding and behaving pretty well, too. I acknowledge that it can be tricky to discuss without going full CR, but I really wanted it to focus mostly on providing/sharing information.

I'll likely continue to post relevant content here as I come across it, though.

Cool. I will follow. Let's start. Haiti. And since we can go political now, Rubio. He gives a bit about it, and knows the subject. It does impact the US though we rarely hear about it.

My take is if there is 1 place where we get pulled in it is Haiti in the Western Hemisphere within 10 months. The Kenyans went in as Proxies, and are doing fuck all as expected. The Salvadorans just voted to send in army units. Let me be the first. Those fuckers can fight and give zero fucks.

I think we see a UN mission going in with US command, control and logistics support. Few troops unless it is a QRF.

And yeah, I saw the intent. My covid thread started in DT and was pretty good for awhile. Then....

Edited by InkaUtexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...