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.

Seems rather binary:  forced if mind changed, or not forced if mind not changed.

Is there really no alternate theory for why they would have changed their minds?  Better deal than China was able to offer?  Consideration in other areas such as trade or financial dealings?

Just because you believe the US is evil doesn't mean force is the only tool in our toolbox.

Is this how you see Trump?  Or is this how you see every US official dealing with other nations?

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.

It matters not whether he stated it before the question or in response to the question. That is a meaningless distinction. If I say I am going to kill you after you ask me if I am going to kill you does that make my statement any less significant?

Is there really no alternate theory for why they would have changed their minds?  Better deal than China was able to offer?  Consideration in other areas such as trade or financial dealings?

If there was a better deal the US empire could have offered in the past, don't you think the Panamanians would have had that arrangement all these years?  The mere fact that Panama's government decided to make agreements with China and Chinese companies in the first place is because they offered the best deal.

If there was a "better deal" the Panamanians received for severing their participation with China's Belt and Road Initiative and Chinese companies managing their canal ports, it is quite telling that there is no word about it.  All we do know is that Panama will lose Chinese trade opportunities as well as revenue for now not being able to charge US imperial naval ships for canal passage.

Just because you believe the US is evil doesn't mean force is the only tool in our toolbox.

The US empire has many tools, but naked force has been the most common tool for its foreign policy since WWII.

Is this how you see Trump?  Or is this how you see every US official dealing with other nations?

Trump is not an evil man, but judging from his rhetoric of taking territory from other sovereign nations whether they like it or not, it appears he has surrounded himself with a number of neocons and imperialists who are definitely orgasming at the moment.

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.

There you go creating hypothetical scenarios that aren't relevant again.  Trump never said anything about "If X happens then we would consider military force". If I said I was considering killing you I can't later pretend some what if scenario to say I meant I would kill you if you tried to kill me. You are doing gymnastics to defend an indefensible comment by Trump, cognitive bias in action.

Good job refusing to admit you are wrong.

It matters not whether he stated it before the question or in response to the question. That is a meaningless distinction. If I say I am going to kill you after you ask me if I am going to kill you does that make my statement any less significant?

And here's the goal post moving.  Thanks for playing.

If there was a better deal the US empire could have offered in the past, don't you think the Panamanians would have had that arrangement all these years?  The mere fact that Panama's government decided to make agreements with China and Chinese companies in the first place is because they offered the best deal.

If there was a "better deal" the Panamanians received for severing their participation with China's Belt and Road Initiative and Chinese companies managing their canal ports, it is quite telling that there is no word about it.  All we do know is that Panama will lose Chinese trade opportunities as well as revenue for now not being able to charge US imperial naval ships for canal passage.


The US empire has many tools, but naked force has been the most common tool for its foreign policy since WWII.


Trump is not an evil man, but judging from his rhetoric of taking territory from other sovereign nations whether they like it or not, it appears he has surrounded himself with a number of neocons and imperialists who are definitely orgasming at the moment.

This is a serious questions, is it not possible that the decision makers were bribed to take a China deal over a US one?

There you go creating hypothetical scenarios that aren't relevant again.  Trump never said anything about "If X happens then we would consider military force". If I said I was considering killing you I can't later pretend some what if scenario to say I meant I would kill you if you tried to kill me. You are doing gymnastics to defend an indefensible comment by Trump, cognitive bias in action.

Good job refusing to admit you are wrong.

And here's the copying my words "good job refusing to admit you're wrong".  Geez, since you got no thoughts of your own that work huh?

And again, my hypothetical answering your questions on Canada and nukes isn't good enough for you.  Even though you stated it first.  And to elaborate, I'm sure our government has doomsday type plans (nuking) for every country. Some are probably over 40 years old, others are updated more often.

You keep trying to play.  Maybe you'll get a participation trophy at some point.

This is a serious questions, is it not possible that the decision makers were bribed to take a China deal over a US one?

it's obvious the Biden administration was much more pro-China than Trump's.  Seems reasonable to assume China and Panama were 100% uninterested in anything the US had to say, much like how Putin waited until after Trump left office to invade Ukraine.

it's not because Putin liked Trump.  Trump was strengthening NATO and getting partners to start kicking in their agreed upon support.  That's not something Putin would appreciate.

This is a serious questions, is it not possible that the decision makers were bribed to take a China deal over a US one?

That could be totally right.

However, seeing how the US empire bribes all of its vassal states, it is hard to see the US empire not offer an even bigger bribe to dissuade Panama from dealing with China years ago.

That could be totally right.

However, seeing how the US empire bribes all of its vassal states, it is hard to see the US empire not offer an even bigger bribe to dissuade Panama from dealing with China years ago.

And if the fake news ever found out, imagine the Trump bad press that would be for months. Followed by impeachment, more raids, etc...

So no, i doubt trump or rubio bribed them.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And here's the copying my words "good job refusing to admit you're wrong".  Geez, since you got no thoughts of your own that work huh?

And again, my hypothetical answering your questions on Canada and nukes isn't good enough for you.  Even though you stated it first.  And to elaborate, I'm sure our government has doomsday type plans (nuking) for every country. Some are probably over 40 years old, others are updated more often.

You keep trying to play.  Maybe you'll get a participation trophy at some point.

Just calling you out on your own BS, it matters not if I use your own words against you. It is worth noting that you had to resort to pointing out my copying of you because you didn't have any better argument to make.

Hypotheticals are fine but Trump wasn't asked a hypothetical question.

You still are avoiding answering the simple question I have posed to you about whether we would be justified in killing Panamanians in order to retake the canal as things are now (not under any number of hypothetical futures). You can't seem to answer Kuleana's question of what gives us the right to tell Panama what they want to do with their canal either...

Just calling you out on your own BS, it matters not if I use your own words against you. It is worth noting that you had to resort to pointing out my copying of you because you didn't have any better argument to make.

Hypotheticals are fine but Trump wasn't asked a hypothetical question.

You still are avoiding answering the simple question I have posed to you about whether we would be justified in killing Panamanians in order to retake the canal as things are now (not under any number of hypothetical futures). You can't seem to answer Kuleana's question of what gives us the right to tell Panama what they want to do with their canal either...

My BS? Hahahahha here's the next tactic.  Please show me where I said Trump was asked about a hypothetical question with regard to this thread.

Wow, another tactic has emerged.  WHen you're wrong, you find tactics to make it sound like you're not.

Why should I answer your question?  This is way too much fun to see you and all your tactics.

Your 2nd part was already answered about "what to do with their canal". You just chose to ignore it cause it doesn't fit your feelings.

Thanks for playing.

My BS? Hahahahha here's the next tactic.  Please show me where I said Trump was asked about a hypothetical question with regard to this thread.

Wow, another tactic has emerged.  WHen you're wrong, you find tactics to make it sound like you're not.

Why should I answer your question?  This is way too much fun to see you and all your tactics.

Your 2nd part was already answered about "what to do with their canal". You just chose to ignore it cause it doesn't fit your feelings.

Thanks for playing.

Strawman. I never said you said Trump was asked a hypothetical question. I am calling you out because you are making up hypotheticals to try and justify Trump's answer because you know that there is nothing good to justify his answer. Your cognitive bias is strong.

Strawman. I never said you said Trump was asked a hypothetical question. I am calling you out because you are making up hypotheticals to try and justify Trump's answer because you know that there is nothing good to justify his answer. Your cognitive bias is strong.

And we circled back to my what if's aren't good, but you feel that ALL of yours are.  Thanks for playing.

And we circled back to my what if's aren't good, but you feel that ALL of yours are.  Thanks for playing.

I didn't say they aren't good I said they are irrelevant. The amnesia hitting you hard today huh?

Is amnesia your word of the day?  DId you hear the word online/TV/radio, which is why you're using it so much?

Just admit, you're wrong again.

Is amnesia your word of the day?  DId you hear the word online/TV/radio, which is why you're using it so much?

Just admit, you're wrong again.

Says the guy who uses swoosh every post... 

Says the guy who uses swoosh every post... 

SWOOOOSSHHHHH. It's even funnier that you don't know what you're getting swoooosshhhhed.

Who says that Trump is not out to serve the financial interests of the American oligarchs and Power Okole?

Why is no one talking about who is taking control of the Panama Canal?

Who says that Trump is not out to serve the financial interests of the American oligarchs and Power Okole?

Why is no one talking about who is taking control of the Panama Canal?

Because nobody cares.

The ports are still under the control of government.  Blackrock is paying a fee to become a concessionaire who operates 2 ports.  No different than a dry cleaner paying to operate on a military base at the local Post or Base Exchange.  if a concessionaire isn't living up to the contract or is getting too many complaints from customers, the government can either replace them immediately under breach of contract or wait for the current contract to lapse and award it to someone else.