Strawman, I never claimed Trump started any wars, nor did I even mention war. 

I know Trump brags about not starting wars.

Not just Trump.  Anyone who doesn't want never-ending wars having no stated objective to know when the mission is complete understands (and brags about) why Trump's national security stance runs rings around any other President this century.

Trump has a right to remind people of such a monumental record when it comes to the wars we've been involved in since 9-11.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Does Panama need to ask the US empire's permission as to who they include to manage the operations of their canal?

If the nations of Asia have the right to allow US imperial bases on their sovereign territory, Panama has the equal right to do allow any country to assist them in any capacity.


Just like how the US empire is arming the Republic of China as well as has garrisoned Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines to shut off Chinese shipping to the World when the US empire begins its next proxy war this time with China?

It's not about the moral question of right or wrong.  it's about risk assessment.

If you play chess, there's no such thing as a wrong move.  However there are stupid  moves.  If you want to expose your King and have to constantly defend it while your opponent relentlessly keeps you on the defensive, you're going to lose the game.

The Panama Canal is a vital resource which the US completed after the French failed, and we handed over complete control to Panama in 1977.  We depend the canal to keep our goods moving between our east and the Pacific -- a vital passageway to allow those ships to reach Asia.

Think about all the goods we get from China and other countries in the Pacific Rim region.  Many of those ships need to get to the US East Coast and Gulf Coast regions.  The alternative would be to offload them in California and use trucks or railroads at additional cost to transport them over 2,000 miles.  That, or waste time and fuel sailing around South America.

if anyone is against Trump's tariffs because they may increase the prices of imported goods, think about the wasted fossil fuels and transportation costs and the impact on prices that might have.

The average toll paid by cargo and passenger ships is $54,000.  That's much cheaper than the alternatives -- unless someone else takes over and decides the US needs to pay $1M per ship.

Think about all the goods we get from China and other countries in the Pacific Rim region.

That's the point; Zippz shared the national security possibility of China somehow shutting down the Panama Canal if there were any war between China and the US empire.

First of all, China does not want any war with anybody contrary to the non-stop anti-Chinese propagandistic brainwashing spewed by imperialists and neocons.  Second, for those who follow China closely, China's main national goal is making money.  Hence, the only realistic scenario of China somehow taking direct control of the Panama Canal is to ensure the products it's trying to sell does not get confiscated/blocked by the US empire should the US empire starts its proxy war against them.

However, even then shutting down the Panama Canal would not be the main thing people should be worried about in a potential conflict between China and the US empire as there are many other asymmetric options China could employ to defend itself from US imperial aggression (i.e., dollar dump, nationwide cyber viruses, supply chain disruption, satellite destruction, etc.).

That's the point; Zippz shared the national security possibility of China somehow shutting down the Panama Canal if there were any war between China and the US empire.

First of all, China does not want any war with anybody contrary to the non-stop anti-Chinese propagandistic brainwashing spewed by imperialists and neocons.  Second, for those who follow China closely, China's main national goal is making money.  Hence, the only realistic scenario of China somehow taking direct control of the Panama Canal is to ensure the products it's trying to sell does not get confiscated/blocked by the US empire should the US empire starts its proxy war against them.

However, even then shutting down the Panama Canal would not be the main thing people should be worried about in a potential conflict between China and the US empire as there are many other asymmetric options China could employ to defend itself from US imperial aggression (i.e., dollar dump, nationwide cyber viruses, supply chain disruption, satellite destruction, etc.).

Nobody here said (or I'd wager believes) that "shutting down the Panama Canal would... be the main thing people should be worried about in a potential conflict between China and the US..."

It's still a vital piece of the puzzle given the amount of trade between the US and other countries not including Japan.  Imagine China threatening to shutdown the canal for anyone trading with the US.  It would be tantamount to a blockade of US and foreign ships to and from the East coast and Gulf Coast.

Look at all the supply chain problems the US experienced during and for many years after the pandemic.  Losing access to the canal would be 1000 times worse for the US.  We can't get many of our products to other countries in that part of the world, nor goods from that part of the world beyond our West coast without great effort and resources.

Main thing to worry about?  No.  Important risk to assess and avoid?  Absolutely.

That's the point; Zippz shared the national security possibility of China somehow shutting down the Panama Canal if there were any war between China and the US empire.

First of all, China does not want any war with anybody contrary to the non-stop anti-Chinese propagandistic brainwashing spewed by imperialists and neocons.  Second, for those who follow China closely, China's main national goal is making money.  Hence, the only realistic scenario of China somehow taking direct control of the Panama Canal is to ensure the products it's trying to sell does not get confiscated/blocked by the US empire should the US empire starts its proxy war against them.

However, even then shutting down the Panama Canal would not be the main thing people should be worried about in a potential conflict between China and the US empire as there are many other asymmetric options China could employ to defend itself from US imperial aggression (i.e., dollar dump, nationwide cyber viruses, supply chain disruption, satellite destruction, etc.).

China does want war.   Wait and see. The real question is can they fight and win a war.  I'm hoping they saw what happened to Russian and use their brains and decide they can't win. 

Feel free to move to China if they are so righteous and you love them so much.  Won't be able to access this site with all their censorship but I guess, if you don't support America and it's ideals that means nothing to you. 

China does want war.   Wait and see. The real question is can they fight and win a war.  I'm hoping they saw what happened to Russian and use their brains and decide they can't win. 

Feel free to move to China if they are so righteous and you love them so much.  Won't be able to access this site with all their censorship but I guess, if you don't support America and it's ideals that means nothing to you.

What imagining do u have that china wants a regular war?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Chinese temu spies have infiltrated 2A Hawaii.  The war has begun.

China does want war.   Wait and see. The real question is can they fight and win a war.  I'm hoping they saw what happened to Russian and use their brains and decide they can't win.

Ukraine has been devastated, and Russia is set to achieve its war aims.

If anything, it is the US empire that is about to lose its proxy war against Russia.

Feel free to move to China if they are so righteous and you love them so much.  Won't be able to access this site with all their censorship but I guess, if you don't support America and it's ideals that means nothing to you.

On that same note, since Ukraine is still desperately needing soldiers to throw into the meatgrinder to halt the Russian Juggernaut, why don't you and the rest of the imperialists and neocons on this forum volunteer to fight in Ukraine.

China does want war.   Wait and see. The real question is can they fight and win a war.  I'm hoping they saw what happened to Russian and use their brains and decide they can't win. 

Feel free to move to China if they are so righteous and you love them so much.  Won't be able to access this site with all their censorship but I guess, if you don't support America and it's ideals that means nothing to you.

What makes you think Kuleana feels china is so righteous and loves them?  Another imagination.

He's right, China doesn't want a regular war as it would cost them too much and they're about money.  Also, China has never won a war in their entire history.

But CHina is doing other types of war like economic warfare, cyber, propaganda, etc...That's why I said "regular war".  And they've been doing this for decades.

There is a national security interest in taking control of the canal.  Panama uses a Chinese company to operate part of the canal.  If China eventually takes over the entire canal operations, it would be used as leverage in a trade war or close it off to US shipping in a war.

Even worse.  There is (or was) an express pass system to get priority.  I think the KTR on the project I'm working on mentioned a premium of something like $3-5 Mil.  My project has all sorts of "prioritization" at high levels, and essentially was getting "well, get in line".  My understanding that other .mil assets were treated similarly, though no direct information. 

Add to all that, "climate change" was also cited as a reason to further limit canal traffic. 

Even worse.  There is (or was) an express pass system to get priority.  I think the KTR on the project I'm working on mentioned a premium of something like $3-5 Mil.  My project has all sorts of "prioritization" at high levels, and essentially was getting "well, get in line".  My understanding that other .mil assets were treated similarly, though no direct information. 

Add to all that, "climate change" was also cited as a reason to further limit canal traffic.

Military assets -- with the exception of Naval ships -- have airlift as a viable option for deploying and moving supplies to wherever they are needed.

There can be issues with humanitarian efforts if the USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort need quick passage.

Since US Naval ships are mostly stationed in the vicinity of the theaters in which they operate, i don't see the Panama Canal as a big deal in that regard.  It would be rare for PACFLT ships to be sent into Atlantic theaters.

Soo… you have an issue with how Trump “brought up the issue” more than the issue itself. Only with a suspicion of a “kernel” of truth?

I actually agree with what I think  are trying to say. I do think Trump is a buffoon at times and could be handle things better. That said I also think his unconstrained approach is also shocking to most who are so used to how most politicians are, and blinded by MSM to be objective.

I am more of a logic, numbers, and reason type of person so if someone wants to undertake some big thing, like taking back the Panama Canal, I want to see data and logical arguments of why it would be good to take back control at all, much less take back control when Panama doesn't want to give it up. The only bit of data Trump offered was that 35,000 Americans died building it, with the implication that gives us some sort of right to it. Only problem is that number isn't even close to accurate. About 20,000 died in total but only about 5,000 died during the American construction period.

I said I suspect there is some kernel of truth to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is some argument to be made that USA ships are charged at a higher rate than ships from other countries or maybe we don't get a discount we should get for the volume we send through. I am just coming up with possible explanations that might have made Trump think we should take it back, unfortunately he can't even bother to do that. I know Trump prides himself on being the great negotiator so I think his motive is to try and get some better deal for our ships but I fear all he is going to accomplish is to create needless strife.

There is a national security interest in taking control of the canal.  Panama uses a Chinese company to operate part of the canal.  If China eventually takes over the entire canal operations, it would be used as leverage in a trade war or close it off to US shipping in a war.

It does make sense from a national security interest point of view that controlling it would be beneficial to us but that hardly justifies us taking it by some amount of force if Panama, a sovereign nation, isn't willing to sell it, that's the problem.

Plus, China can make the same argument that for us to control it becomes a national security interest for them to want to control it fully. Are we going to end up with a standoff between China and the USA to control it? On top of that I think that trying to excerpt our influence to gain some amount of control could end up in the long run creating more problems. Panama might agree but relationships could sour, claims of unfair American pricing could be raised, etc. The conflict it creates could snowball essentially.

It's not about the moral question of right or wrong.  it's about risk assessment.

I am not disputing the risk assessment angle but we cannot dispense with morality. Sure, if China bought the canal from Panama that would be a huge risk for the USA, but even that wouldn't justify us invading Panama, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians just to keep it from China. (worst case scenario)

yet all you do on this forum is add nuance and perform thought experiments?

I am more of a logic, numbers, and reason type of person so if someone wants to undertake some big thing, like taking back the Panama Canal, I want to see data and logical arguments of why it would be good to take back control at all, much less take back control when Panama doesn't want to give it up. The only bit of data Trump offered was that 35,000 Americans died building it, with the implication that gives us some sort of right to it. Only problem is that number isn't even close to accurate. About 20,000 died in total but only about 5,000 died during the American construction period.

I said I suspect there is some kernel of truth to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is some argument to be made that USA ships are charged at a higher rate than ships from other countries or maybe we don't get a discount we should get for the volume we send through. I am just coming up with possible explanations that might have made Trump think we should take it back, unfortunately he can't even bother to do that. I know Trump prides himself on being the great negotiator so I think his motive is to try and get some better deal for our ships but I fear all he is going to accomplish is to create needless strife.

I am not disputing the risk assessment angle but we cannot dispense with morality. Sure, if China bought the canal from Panama that would be a huge risk for the USA, but even that wouldn't justify us invading Panama, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians just to keep it from China. (worst case scenario)

Governments don't have morals. They have interests.

Military assets -- with the exception of Naval ships -- have airlift as a viable option for deploying and moving supplies to wherever they are needed.

There can be issues with humanitarian efforts if the USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort need quick passage.

Since US Naval ships are mostly stationed in the vicinity of the theaters in which they operate, i don't see the Panama Canal as a big deal in that regard.  It would be rare for PACFLT ships to be sent into Atlantic theaters.

My experience is with commercial shipping, but was coordinated via Navy leaders and info I was referring to was a "side convo".  So who knows if truth or mis conveyance of information. . .

yet all you do on this forum is add nuance and perform thought experiments?

I was going to mention the same thing.  Where he is usualy quick to write off other posters who provide data and typically sound logical arguments, then goes on a tangent to side step and bring up more questions. . .

I am more of a logic, numbers, and reason type of person so if someone wants to undertake some big thing, like taking back the Panama Canal, I want to see data and logical arguments of why it would be good to take back control at all, much less take back control when Panama doesn't want to give it up. The only bit of data Trump offered was that 35,000 Americans died building it, with the implication that gives us some sort of right to it. Only problem is that number isn't even close to accurate. About 20,000 died in total but only about 5,000 died during the American construction period.

I said I suspect there is some kernel of truth to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is some argument to be made that USA ships are charged at a higher rate than ships from other countries or maybe we don't get a discount we should get for the volume we send through. I am just coming up with possible explanations that might have made Trump think we should take it back, unfortunately he can't even bother to do that. I know Trump prides himself on being the great negotiator so I think his motive is to try and get some better deal for our ships but I fear all he is going to accomplish is to create needless strife.

Have you ever thought that he is doesn't say things on purpose?  "Art of the Deal".  Why don't you do your own research to see why he said what he did.  Others already posted good info here for starters.

I am more of a logic, numbers, and reason type of person

I don't think you know what you think this means...