I never looked into how the canal was created or any agreements. But based on Trumps speach:

The US funded and help build the canal with an agreement for usage. Panama has broken that agreement by overcharging US ships , that includes military ships.  China controls the canal.

I never looked into how the canal was created or any agreements. But based on Trumps speach:

The US funded and help build the canal with an agreement for usage. Panama has broken that agreement by overcharging US ships , that includes military ships.  China controls the canal.

Not so much overcharging as we should get a discount since we built it.  Think they charge everyone equally but they charge everyone high prices since it's a monopoly and a good majority of the ships passing through are going to the US.

China doesn't really control the canal, but there are increasing amounts of chinese running it.  China just has to tell them to stop working or bring them back to China to screw things up there.

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.

I figured you could look up the list of nations within NATO like I did or use deductive reasoning since Panama isn't in the north Atlantic.

Your what ifs are pointless because you could come up with all sorts of scenarios that would justify attacking Panama. I am talking about here and now. What situation exist now that would justify considering attacking Panama?

What fake news? I heard Trump make these comments himself, not looking at some report claiming he made them.

I figured you could look up the list of nations within NATO like I did or use deductive reasoning since Panama isn't in the north Atlantic.

Your what ifs are pointless because you could come up with all sorts of scenarios that would justify attacking Panama. I am talking about here and now. What situation exist now that would justify considering attacking Panama?

What fake news? I heard Trump make these comments himself, not looking at some report claiming he made them.

Why are my "what if's" pointless? I guess you're the only one allowed to make "what if's".

Rubio was sent to Panama and not soldiers to invade it.  They agreed to cease China's control of the canal.  See how simple minded people get fooled by the fake news when they focused on military force.

Well, it seemed all the bluster and innuendos of military force was all a ruse to stop Panama from joining and growing its economy with China's Belt and Road Initiative and get back on board the sinking inflation-ridden US imperial "rules-based order" ship.

Panamanian freedom takes a hit from the US empire.

Well, it seemed all the bluster and innuendos of military force was all a ruse to stop Panama from joining and growing its economy with China's Belt and Road Initiative and get back on board the sinking inflation-ridden US imperial "rules-based order" ship.

Panamanian freedom takes a hit from the US empire.

China and freedom in the same sentence is interesting.

China and freedom in the same sentence is interesting.

China did and has not forced any nation to join their Belt and Road Initiative.

The US empire has just succeeded in forcing Panama to cease their economic relationship with another nation.

Which country then is respecting other nation's freedom to choose, and which is not?

China did and has not forced any nation to join their Belt and Road Initiative.

The US empire has just succeeded in forcing Panama to cease their economic relationship with another nation.

Which country then is respecting other nation's freedom to choose, and which is not?

How did the US "force"?  Options are given and either taken or rejected.

How did the US "force"?  Options are given and either taken or rejected.

Didn't you see the breaking news where Trump ordered the military into Panama just like the Trump haters said he would?

Oh, wait.  That wasn't reality.  most of what the TDS crowd post is in the realm of make believe.

I remember a video of Biden bragging how he actually forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor going after energy company paying Hunter millions by using the threat of withholding a billion dollars in aid.  Funny how people seem to have shrugged that off when they voted for him twice, but Trump is the threat to other nations' autonomy. 

Why are my "what if's" pointless? I guess you're the only one allowed to make "what if's".

The what if here was pointless because we were talking about Trump's comments in the present context, not any number of hypothetical futures. If Trump had said that if China invaded Panama and took control over the canal then of course military action would be reasonable. But Trump just said he wanted the Panama Canal back and was considering military force in order to do so.

If I say you have something I want, that is not good justification for me saying I am considering beating you up to take it, otherwise we are just bullies stealing with impunity. I don't know why you think that position, as it exists in current context, is defensible.

How did the US "force"?  Options are given and either taken or rejected.

So "you give me your wallet or maybe I will punch you" doesn't involve force, you are just choosing to give me your wallet?

You are skipping the key question he is posing to you. What gives us the right to threaten Panama for how they choose to operate their canal? Freedom for the USA but not for them?

So "you give me your wallet or maybe I will punch you" doesn't involve force, you are just choosing to give me your wallet?

You are skipping the key question he is posing to you. What gives us the right to threaten Panama for how they choose to operate their canal? Freedom for the USA but not for them?

You confuse leverage with force.

Scientifically, you can produce more results with less force if you have adequate leverage.  The longer the lever, the less force is needed.

In politics, it's called negotiating from a position of strength.

Panama wasn't forced.  They weighed their options, evaluated the cost and benefit of each, and CHOSE the option they think is in their best interest.

it's no different than the price of gas skyrocketing.  You can either continue consumption at the same level and pay more, or you can get an EV or hybrid, or you can simply use alternate forms of conveyance (i.e. public transportation) to avoid the increase in gas prices.

Nobody is forcing you out of your fossil fuel burning vehicle.  You're just reevaluating your options given a change in circumstances.

You confuse leverage with force.

Scientifically, you can produce more results with less force if you have adequate leverage.  The longer the lever, the less force is needed.

In politics, it's called negotiating from a position of strength.

Panama wasn't forced.  They weighed their options, evaluated the cost and benefit of each, and CHOSE the option they think is in their best interest.

it's no different than the price of gas skyrocketing.  You can either continue consumption at the same level and pay more, or you can get an EV or hybrid, or you can simply use alternate forms of conveyance (i.e. public transportation) to avoid the increase in gas prices.

Nobody is forcing you out of your fossil fuel burning vehicle.  You're just reevaluating your options given a change in circumstances.

If the USA used economic leverage to get Chinese companies out of the Panama Canal such as saying they would boycott the canal, I would be fine with that.

I do not confuse leverage with force. My whole point of contention on this whole thread was centered only around using the military to retake the Panama Canal. As I said earlier I was entirely open to the idea of the USA purchasing the Panama Canal.

The what if here was pointless because we were talking about Trump's comments in the present context, not any number of hypothetical futures. If Trump had said that if China invaded Panama and took control over the canal then of course military action would be reasonable. But Trump just said he wanted the Panama Canal back and was considering military force in order to do so.

If I say you have something I want, that is not good justification for me saying I am considering beating you up to take it, otherwise we are just bullies stealing with impunity. I don't know why you think that position, as it exists in current context, is defensible.

Re-read my statement. You're playing into it again, my "what ifs" are not good enough as your "what ifs".

Re-read my statement. You're playing into it again, my "what ifs" are not good enough as your "what ifs".

Because it isn't about what ifs, it is about the world as it exists now.

With your logic Trump might as well say he is considering nuking Canada because there could be some what if scenario that would justify it.

Stop defending the indefensible.

The what if here was pointless because we were talking about Trump's comments in the present context, not any number of hypothetical futures. If Trump had said that if China invaded Panama and took control over the canal then of course military action would be reasonable. But Trump just said he wanted the Panama Canal back and was considering military force in order to do so.

If I say you have something I want, that is not good justification for me saying I am considering beating you up to take it, otherwise we are just bullies stealing with impunity. I don't know why you think that position, as it exists in current context, is defensible.

Thanks for once again leaving out that he responded to a question. Did he state prior to the question that he would consider using the military and invade Panama?  Damn, my goal post moving business is booming today.

Because it isn't about what ifs, it is about the world as it exists now.

With your logic Trump might as well say he is considering nuking Canada because there could be some what if scenario that would justify it.

Stop defending the indefensible.

I'm sure the US has a plan that involves nuking Canada.  So if a reporter ask him "if Canada launched nukes against the US, would the US launch nukes at Canada?". 

Stop refusing to admit you're wrong, moving goal post, etc,...just because you're unable to set your ego aside.

How did the US "force"?  Options are given and either taken or rejected.

Assuming that the Panamanians willingly joined China's Belt and Road Initiative as well as subcontracted Chinese companies to run their canal ports, their decision to end those arrangements abruptly had to have been forced by the US empire in some capacity.