US Expansion

#1
V

volbound1700

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
8,610
Likes
12,031
#1
It seems like Trump is obsessed with expanding the USA, whether realistic or just in jest. Is anything going to come of this? What is the realistic chance that the USA acquires Greenland?

Other items he has joked/talked about is Canada and the Panama Canal.

EDIT: I am surprised there is not at least a Greenland thread on here
 
#5
#5
SpaceCoastVol said:
The pearl clutching on the left is hilarious right now.
Click to expand...

It is clearly a joke by Trump but it went over their head. Granted both sides do that. You definitely can't make a joke as a politician. Trump has learned how to use that to his advantage with these outrageous comments about Gulf of America and Canada being 51st state (that one broke Trudeau).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#7
#7
its all posturing to take attention away from other things he is going to do. a pseudo bait and switch.

he will use it as a bargaining tool. "ok Denmark, I will drop the Greenland thing if you spend more on your military for NATO." or maybe he just settles for another base there or something.

for the record, I don't think that that plan is a smart one. it does more damage than it helps us. but Trump doesn't care, he wants immediate results, damn the long term ramifications.

I mean its possible he tried to do something, and gets shut down for it. but I think that likelihood is lower than 2 or 3 other possible outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and volbound1700
#8
#8
LouderVol said:
its all posturing to take attention away from other things he is going to do. a pseudo bait and switch.

he will use it as a bargaining tool. "ok Denmark, I will drop the Greenland thing if you spend more on your military for NATO." or maybe he just settles for another base there or something.

for the record, I don't think that that plan is a smart one. it does more damage than it helps us. but Trump doesn't care, he wants immediate results, damn the long term ramifications.

I mean its possible he tried to do something, and gets shut down for it. but I think that likelihood is lower than 2 or 3 other possible outcomes.
Click to expand...

Probably some truth to this one. From what I gathered, USA has tried to buy Greenland for some time (not just Trump). Trump is the only one being loud about it. I think it has gone on in close channels prior to Trump. The fear is Greenland getting independence and then China/Russia stepping in. Denmark, USA, EU, etc. don't want that. That is the story in the story that people are missing.

Greenland has value to USA for both defense and natural resources. Question is whether we can still acquire what we want without owning Greenland. I think if it was under Denmark, that would be the case. The fear know is what would a fully independent Greenland be about and that is why USA is making noise at this point.

All the other stuff is just hyperbole. He is trolling Trudeau with the Canada talk and the Panama Canal reacquisition was a cut at Carter's legacy (and Democrats) IMO. It was a mistake for Carter to give it back.

I do think Trump is against the current system and thinks outside of it. The way we see international politics is a little stupid. I feel like we had a stronger national policy in the 1800s. If we followed our stupid mentality today, we would never have Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, California, Nevada, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

EDIT: The ultimate end game is likely that we don't acquire Greenland but we get some type of mining rights agreement as well as a defense agreement to put bases there and keep China/Russia out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, USF grad in TN, SpaceCoastVol and 2 others
#9
#9
The Canada thing was just to piss off Trudeau and the libs/MSM. However I think the Canal and Greenland are major National Security issues. The PC should have never been turned over to Panama. We built it and many Americans lost their lives doing it. If China were to rangle control of it. We would be in trouble.

I think the ultimate goal with Greenland is to add probably an Air Force base there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#10
#10
volbound1700 said:
Panama Canal reacquisition was a cut at Carter's legacy (and Democrats) IMO. It was a mistake for Carter to give it back.
Click to expand...
CagleMtnVol said:
The PC should have never been turned over to Panama. We built it and many Americans lost their lives doing it. If China were to rangle control of it. We would be in trouble.
Click to expand...
Didn't we relinquish control according to terms of the agreement with Panama when we built it? Was Panama remiss with any of the terms on their end? As in financial or security commitments required before ceding Panama?

Internationally, did we have a strong argument to justify retaining control of the Panama canal?

Did our stance during the 58 Suez crisis affect our stance pertaining to the Panama Canal? I could see our western allies applying some strong 'F-you' diplomatic pressure after we refused to support their seizure of the Suez Canal.
 
#11
#11
Panama is treading on thin ice as there was a provision in the treaty that there be no foreign influence in Canal operations.

China is also making plays on Greenland. If we could obtain some agreement for a good price, it would be a bargain. They already have a choice for independence from Denmark, and could leverage that into some type of territory union like Puerto Rico.
 
#12
#12
Orangeburst said:
Panama is treading on thin ice as there was a provision in the treaty that there be no foreign influence in Canal operations.

China is also making plays on Greenland. If we could obtain some agreement for a good price, it would be a bargain. They already have a choice for independence from Denmark, and could leverage that into some type of territory union like Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...

Where exactly is the provision in the treaty dealing with "foreign influence in canal operations'?

 
#13
#13
volbound1700 said:
It is clearly a joke by Trump but it went over their head. Granted both sides do that. You definitely can't make a joke as a politician. Trump has learned how to use that to his advantage with these outrageous comments about Gulf of America and Canada being 51st state (that one broke Trudeau).
Click to expand...
The southern wall is going to break the socialist president of Mexico.
 
#14
#14
LouderVol said:
its all posturing to take attention away from other things he is going to do. a pseudo bait and switch.

he will use it as a bargaining tool. "ok Denmark, I will drop the Greenland thing if you spend more on your military for NATO." or maybe he just settles for another base there or something.

for the record, I don't think that that plan is a smart one. it does more damage than it helps us. but Trump doesn't care, he wants immediate results, damn the long term ramifications.

I mean its possible he tried to do something, and gets shut down for it. but I think that likelihood is lower than 2 or 3 other possible outcomes.
Click to expand...
He doesn't need a quid pro quo for having Europe pony up their fair share for NATO. He can tell them we will pull out and they can fund it themselves if they don't like it. It's about time to do that too. Europe needs us far more than we need them. The UN is a European body and it's as useful as a glass hammer.

Bait and switch? Nah. A good solid promise.
 
#16
#16
volbound1700 said:
It seems like Trump is obsessed with expanding the USA, whether realistic or just in jest. Is anything going to come of this? What is the realistic chance that the USA acquires Greenland?

Other items he has joked/talked about is Canada and the Panama Canal.

EDIT: I am surprised there is not at least a Greenland thread on here
Click to expand...
Worsening relations with our allies. Other than that? No.
 
#18
#18
www.atlanticcouncil.org

The US is right to be concerned about China’s influence over the Panama Canal

Legitimate concerns about growing Chinese influence over the canal demand Washington’s attention and warrant a measured, diplomatic approach.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

  • Neutrality: Both parties agreed to maintain the canal’s permanent neutrality with particular emphasis on ensuring access for military vessels. China’s economic control on both sides of the canal raises concerns about the potential for rapid militarization and its ability to control canal access. Panama’s willingness to relinquish critical economic control of strategically significant areas and infrastructure—a hallmark of China’s Belt and Road Initiative strategy—casts doubt on Panama’s resolve and capacity to effectively safeguard the canal’s neutrality as agreed to in the treaty. The costs of a neutrality breach are significant enough that the United States may be justified in taking preemptive action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#19
#19
I think people are underestimating what could happen over the next 4 to 12 years.

Greenland - ripe for a closer relationship up to and including adding as a territory.
Panama Canal - trivial to “alter the terms of the agreement” to re-assert control.
Canada - no one cares
Mexico - Messy due to cartels but can it be ignored?
Cuba - ???? How difficult would it be to “free” the Cuban people at this point? Seems like potentially an easy win for any number of special interests.

Are there treaties and contracts that might be obstacles? Of course. Has that stopped those in power before? Is military action the only option for the country that, for better or worse, can make or break the finances of people and groups worldwide?
 
#20
#20
Orangeburst said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

The US is right to be concerned about China’s influence over the Panama Canal

Legitimate concerns about growing Chinese influence over the canal demand Washington’s attention and warrant a measured, diplomatic approach.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

  • Neutrality: Both parties agreed to maintain the canal’s permanent neutrality with particular emphasis on ensuring access for military vessels. China’s economic control on both sides of the canal raises concerns about the potential for rapid militarization and its ability to control canal access. Panama’s willingness to relinquish critical economic control of strategically significant areas and infrastructure—a hallmark of China’s Belt and Road Initiative strategy—casts doubt on Panama’s resolve and capacity to effectively safeguard the canal’s neutrality as agreed to in the treaty. The costs of a neutrality breach are significant enough that the United States may be justified in taking preemptive action.
Click to expand...
China has been doing this **** for years, and the US has done virtually nothing about it. We've essentially abandoned Panama in a lot of our economic support work, and China has been trying to step right in.

What China does is promises investment to a country, makes the investment promised, and then tells the country "haha, this is fully ours, we're going to do what we want with it, should have read the fine print!". Countries with broken procurement cultures and/or corrupt governments and/or desperation for development fall for it every damn time.
 
#21
#21
twoffo said:
I think people are underestimating what could happen over the next 4 to 12 years.

Greenland - ripe for a closer relationship up to and including adding as a territory.
Panama Canal - trivial to “alter the terms of the agreement” to re-assert control.
Canada - no one cares
Mexico - Messy due to cartels but can it be ignored?
Cuba - ???? How difficult would it be to “free” the Cuban people at this point? Seems like potentially an easy win for any number of special interests.

Are there treaties and contracts that might be obstacles? Of course. Has that stopped those in power before? Is military action the only option for the country that, for better or worse, can make or break the finances of people and groups worldwide?
Click to expand...
Economic warfare is the future. People get worked up and think only about violence because they're too caveman to understand that a powerful nation has more than a few ways to exert influence. If the US is going to play world police (which I don't really like), I don't mind as much if it's essentially "free" by way of leveraging our massive balls instead of being scared to. At the end of the day, like I've said, the US has way more influence and power than any of us actually believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#22
#22
Orangeburst said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

The US is right to be concerned about China’s influence over the Panama Canal

Legitimate concerns about growing Chinese influence over the canal demand Washington’s attention and warrant a measured, diplomatic approach.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

  • Neutrality: Both parties agreed to maintain the canal’s permanent neutrality with particular emphasis on ensuring access for military vessels. China’s economic control on both sides of the canal raises concerns about the potential for rapid militarization and its ability to control canal access. Panama’s willingness to relinquish critical economic control of strategically significant areas and infrastructure—a hallmark of China’s Belt and Road Initiative strategy—casts doubt on Panama’s resolve and capacity to effectively safeguard the canal’s neutrality as agreed to in the treaty. The costs of a neutrality breach are significant enough that the United States may be justified in taking preemptive action.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing for preemptive military action against Panama, for a breach of canal transport neutrality that hasn't occurred?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top