"He's just talking" is an utterly stupid defense of what he said. I know you are smarter than that. When Biden "just talks" and says something stupid you would never defend him with that same argument. If you said we should take back Panama Canal, that is just talking. When the leader of the USA says it, that is not "just talking".

SSSSSWWOOOOSSSHHHH

WOw, youre back after some days away and you're in full swooosh mode.

BTW, when Brandon mentioned forgiving student loans, I did say that he was just talking shit to get votes.  But I was wrong as he did try. So here's your "you would never defend him with that same argument" statement.

The issue is whether the USA is justified in taking the Panama Canal away from a sovereign country. You can try to be all technical saying it is about what is best for the country if you want to play that game but the end question is still the same even if you change how you frame it.

No country is ever legally justified in acquiring territory beyond their borders without some sort of treaty mutually signed by both nations.  If a nation takes territory by any other means, that territory taken is legally referred as occupied territory (i.e., Hawaii).

Trump was recently asked if he could ensure that the USA wasn't going to use the military to retake the Panama Canal and he said he would not commit to that. That means Trump considers military force as an option to retake control of the Panama Canal. So now that he has made that clear, does the USA's strategic and economic interest justify us starting a war against another country, possibly killing their citizens, in order for us to take part of their territory?

Is Trump's justification of "national security purposes" going to justify any and all military taking of land from sovereign non-enemy nations?

In fairness to Trump, American patriots should wait till January 20th to see whether President Trump decides on the territorial expansion of the US empire legally or illegally before concluding his surrender/accession to the neocon and imperialist agenda than dominate the US empire.

.

SSSSSWWOOOOSSSHHHH

What a stupid defending of your stupid statement. You can't even address the actual question I posed but instead have to act like we are talking about not playing our hand.

In fairness to Trump, American patriots should wait till January 20th to see whether President Trump decides on the territorial expansion of the US empire legally or illegally before concluding his surrender/accession to the neocon and imperialist agenda than dominate the US empire.

Fair point, maybe he is blowing hot air and will never actually do anything but when the future leader of such a powerful nation blusters like that it still has an effect.

What a weak defending of your stupid statement.

OMG, you just got swoooossshhheeedd again.

Way to miss the point.

Pot, kettle. nice try. Hahahahahahha

Pot, kettle. nice try. Hahahahahahha

Suggesting that Trump is not playing his whole hand is not even the issue I raised. Work on your reading comprehension

Suggesting that Trump is not playing his whole hand is not even the issue I raised. Work on your reading comprehension

SWOOOOSSSHHH for like the 5th time today.  I'm beginning to wonder if you enjoy swooshes.

SWOOOOSSSHHH for like the 5th time today.  I'm beginning to wonder if you enjoy swooshes.

Don’t know about EEF or CMO, but I prefer Skechers.

SWOOOOSSSHHH for like the 5th time today.  I'm beginning to wonder if you enjoy swooshes.

Gosh you are dense. I raised the issue, I know what it is. Stop trying to be clever with your irrelevant suggestion.

Gosh you are dense. I raised the issue, I know what it is. Stop trying to be clever with your irrelevant suggestion.

The fact that you think a swoooosshhh is clever deserves a HAHAHAHAHHA.  Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that you think a swoooosshhh is clever deserves a HAHAHAHAHHA.  Thanks for proving my point.

I said "trying to be clever", implication being your swoosh was in fact a failed attempt. 

How about this, just answer the simple question, would the USA's security or economic interests justify the use of the military to take the Panama Canal by force from Panama? It isn't a trick question or a gotcha question, Trump openly said that it was a possibility so either you support him in that option or you don't.

I said "trying to be clever", implication being your swoosh was in fact a failed attempt. 

How about this, just answer the simple question, would the USA's security or economic interests justify the use of the military to take the Panama Canal by force from Panama? It isn't a trick question or a gotcha question, Trump openly said that it was a possibility so either you support him in that option or you don't.

OMG, now you double admitted it. I think you now get a swoooosshh to the 3rd power.

IDK if I would support or not support him. It all depends what is happening at the time.  Nor have I took much time to look into the issue as of now. Lets use WMB as an example, the people were lied to and an entire war was started with bad intel. Many lives on both sides lost. BTW, same guy who said Iraq had WMD's that are worth of a war we went into also was a major part in the Russia collusion hoax.

InB4 you say "CMO is a blind trump supporter" since you stated twice that "if it X were to happen to Brandon, you would be making lots of statements about it", which I did post about his sniffing and student loan promise as an example to show you're wrong again.

OMG, now you double admitted it. I think you now get a swoooosshh to the 3rd power.

IDK if I would support or not support him. It all depends what is happening at the time.  Nor have I took much time to look into the issue as of now. Lets use WMB as an example, the people were lied to and an entire war was started with bad intel. Many lives on both sides lost. BTW, same guy who said Iraq had WMD's that are worth of a war we went into also was a major part in the Russia collusion hoax.

InB4 you say "CMO is a blind trump supporter" since you stated twice that "if it X were to happen to Brandon, you would be making lots of statements about it", which I did post about his sniffing and student loan promise as an example to show you're wrong again.

All depends what is happening at the time? That is a bit of a copout. Of course circumstances could change, if Panama invaded Florida I would have no problem with us attacking them and taking the canal. The point of the question is as things are now. We have a president who has prided himself on not starting wars now saying he would consider using the military to take the Panama Canal and Greenland (aka war).

If Trump said he would like to purchase the Panama Canal or Greenland I am hesitant to spending that much taxpayer money but I would be open to considering arguments for why it is worth it. But Trump using "national security interests" as a justification to use military force on two non-hostile nations to take territory, and likely human lives, is something I could never get behind. Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a patriot or a conservative could support Trump's use of the military to achieve these goals.

All depends what is happening at the time? That is a bit of a copout. Of course circumstances could change, if Panama invaded Florida I would have no problem with us attacking them and taking the canal. The point of the question is as things are now. We have a president who has prided himself on not starting wars now saying he would consider using the military to take the Panama Canal and Greenland (aka war).

If Trump said he would like to purchase the Panama Canal or Greenland I am hesitant to spending that much taxpayer money but I would be open to considering arguments for why it is worth it. But Trump using "national security interests" as a justification to use military force on two non-hostile nations to take territory, and likely human lives, is something I could never get behind. Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a patriot or a conservative could support Trump's use of the military to achieve these goals.

You should look into what would happen if the canal were to not allow any ships to and from the US.  Then look at who is really controlling it.  Or have you already done that?

I googled when Panama joint NATO and no info can be found.  So, Panama is not part of NATO like how you think they are.  We have invaded them before and the use of the canal was 1 reason amongst others for the invasion.

At this moment, IDK how their leadership is, like does a drug lord run Panama like how he did in 1989 and we invaded?  This is 1 reason why I cannot answer your question. But you are missing the bigger picture like usual as to why Trump said he wouldn't or would invade (option is on the table).

You should look into what would happen if the canal were to not allow any ships to and from the US.  Then look at who is really controlling it.  Or have you already done that?

I googled when Panama joint NATO and no info can be found.  So, Panama is not part of NATO like how you think they are.  We have invaded them before and the use of the canal was 1 reason amongst others for the invasion.

At this moment, IDK how their leadership is, like does a drug lord run Panama like how he did in 1989 and we invaded?  This is 1 reason why I cannot answer your question. But you are missing the bigger picture like usual as to why Trump said he wouldn't or would invade (option is on the table).

"....who is really controlling"
Nope, not going to do the homework of proving your conspiracy theory.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say someone like China was controlling the Panama Canal with the permission of Panama. So what? Does that somehow justify a military invasion of a sovereign nation because they decided to give China some control over their Canal? Are we justified in killing them if they tell us to pound sand and sail around Cape Horn? Panama isn't obligated to let us use their canal at this point. Attacking a country because they attacked us/an ally or because there is a genocide is one thing, attacking them because they don't want to share their natural resource? Not a good justification.

I didn't say Panama was part of NATO genius, Greenland is under Denmark which is a NATO country.

"....who is really controlling"
Nope, not going to do the homework of proving your conspiracy theory.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say someone like China was controlling the Panama Canal with the permission of Panama. So what? Does that somehow justify a military invasion of a sovereign nation because they decided to give China some control over their Canal? Are we justified in killing them if they tell us to pound sand and sail around Cape Horn? Panama isn't obligated to let us use their canal at this point. Attacking a country because they attacked us/an ally or because there is a genocide is one thing, attacking them because they don't want to share their natural resource? Not a good justification.

I didn't say Panama was part of NATO genius, Greenland is under Denmark which is a NATO country.

"Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country" you didn't specify between Panama or Greenland genius. 

Wow, you left out some details for your example about China telling us to pound sand. What if they loaded the canal with Russian and Chinese nukes?  How come you left out this possibility? Is your whataboutism failing?

"Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country" you didn't specify between Panama or Greenland genius. 

I am sorry I didn't bother to educate you that Panama was not part of NATO. I will no longer make assumptions you possess the ability to look that up yourself if you didn't know the answer.

Wow, you left out some details for your example about China telling us to pound sand. What if they loaded the canal with Russian and Chinese nukes?  How come you left out this possibility? Is your whataboutism failing?

Has China loaded the Panama Canal with nukes? Pointless "what ifs" are pointless, you don't justify invading a sovereign nation with "what if" questions.... well maybe you do.

I am sorry I didn't bother to educate you that Panama was not part of NATO. I will no longer make assumptions you possess the ability to look that up yourself if you didn't know the answer.

Has China loaded the Panama Canal with nukes? Pointless "what ifs" are pointless, you don't justify invading a sovereign nation with "what if" questions.... well maybe you do.

Do you expect me to know everything that you know?  No one does. Thanks for being passive aggressive.

Why is my what if pointless?  I guess you are the expert on pointless what ifs.

It's funny that every point you brought up, I heard in the past few days in the fake news. So if you and the fake news say the same thing, don't take that as a good thing.