Posted on 12/24/2024 10:34:39 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Over the past two days, President-elect Donald J. Trump has made clear that he has designs for American territorial expansion, declaring that the United States has both security concerns and commercial interests that can best be addressed by bringing the Panama Canal and Greenland under American control or outright ownership.
Mr. Trump’s tone has had none of the trolling jocularity that surrounded his repeated suggestions in recent weeks that Canada should become America’s “51st state,” including his social media references to the country’s beleaguered prime minister as “Governor Justin Trudeau.”
Instead, while naming a new ambassador to Denmark — which controls Greenland’s foreign and defense affairs — Mr. Trump made clear on Sunday that his first-term offer to buy the landmass could, in the coming term, become a deal the Danes cannot refuse.
He appears to covet Greenland both for its strategic location at a time when the melting of Arctic ice is opening new commercial and naval competition and for its reserves of rare earth minerals needed for advanced technology.
“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media, “the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
On Saturday evening, he had accused Panama of price-gouging American ships traversing the canal, and suggested that unless that changed, he would abandon the Jimmy Carter-era treaty that returned all control of the canal zone to Panama.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh my! I missed that. Thanks. Chihuahuas no doubt?
We definitely agree on the canal- too obviously vital to defend it
I saw and commented on that dude.
“The Communist Chinese military is reportedly all ready for the Panama Canal since a Communist Chinese government front organization took operational management.”
citation please. and no, balboa and cristobal ports are not the panama canal.
how do you defend the canal in modern military terms?
even in the guiden munition era it was obvious that ‘defending’ the canal was becoming an uphill concept.
and now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.