pull down to refresh

Is it really the plan to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal?www.theregister.com/2025/01/11/opinion_column_us_moves/
342 sats \ 15 comments \ @0xbitcoiner 13 Jan Politics_And_Law
Meanwhile, tech titans are falling over themselves to help Trump



We all know the US's incoming president, Donald Trump, has gone off-script in a way that is almost comical. Gulf of America? Make Greenland great again? Taking over the Panama Canal?

Unfortunately, there's a method to his pronouncements. After all, he was elected president, and millions of Americans think he's God's gift to the country.

But, why are tech leaders and billionaires cosying up to him?

In the case of Elon Musk, many would guess that power and money lie at the heart of the new friendship. Musk, who also seems to be wandering further into internet troll territory by the day, has become the "First Buddy."

...read more at theregister.com
write
preview
related posts
325 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan

I thought this stuff was mostly a lark initially, but as it's developed I'd say it was a really successful shifting of the Overton Window.

I see the three cases very differently, so let's take them in order (and toss Canadian statehood into the mix for good measure)

  1. There's no particular reason that Greenland should be part of Denmark. If the people who live there can be persuaded that they'd be better off as part of America and Denmark is willing to sell off the uninhabited parts, then there's no problem with swapping jurisdictions. For the record, American territories have a pretty sweet deal. I know several Alaskans who wish statehood had never happened and have met a few Virgin Islanders who vehemently oppose statehood.
  2. The Panama Canal situation is beyond my understanding. It definitely doesn't sound like it's going to be left to the locals to decide though. Is it better for America to control it? Probably not, but that's what's going to happen, one way or another.
  3. "Gulf of America" is hilarious, but also more accurate and doesn't hurt anyone. I expect this to happen.
  4. Canadian statehood is pretty far-fetched, but I won't be surprised if a real sales pitch is made and some sort of new American Economic Union comes from it. Freer access to Canada for travel and business would be great. Plus, it should be easier for Canadians to flee that sinking ship they're currently trapped in.
reply
188 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan

Regarding #2.

I'm not well versed on the particulars either, however my question is: Why wasn't the US ever paid back for building it?

A cursory google search indicates that the US spent approx $300M to build the canal, in 1914 money! Given that gold was $25 / oz at the time this is about 12M oz gold ($32B in current USD).

This is another typical case of politicians engaging in behavior that would never happen in the real world. Who would ever invest that kind of money and effort in doing something like that and then just "turn it over" with a $0 price tag attached.

reply
23 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan

It's a good question. I imagine the answer is that they never really turned over de facto control.

reply
65 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan

From what I understand Carter came up with a plan to turn it back over to Panama in 1977, which was enacted by Clinton in 1999.

reply
23 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan

Yeah, but the US created the entire nation of Panama, in order to build that canal. I have my doubts that they were ever allowed to be very independent.

reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 13 Jan

They use dollars in Panama

reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan

True. I was there sometime in 2012 or so....funny enough they officially call their currency "Balboas"...and its listed as such on most forex sites.

It was an unexpected trip, so I didnt have time to research, I was rushing around in the airport pre-flight trying to exchange my USD for "Balboas" and the forex guy just laughed and took my 2 x $100 bills and handed them right back and said "poof! now they're Balboas!"

reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 13 Jan
  1. The Panama Canal is one of Panama's government's major sources of income; in 2023 it accounted for 24%. If they lose the Canal, it may be a big loss for the locals and those seeking to relocate there for its tax haven status.
  2. In any case, it doesn't change anything but official US English. Anyone can call it what they want. You can't force the French to call La Manche "the English Channel", and I might just rename the Gulf of Mexico to "the Trump Gulf."
reply
73 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13 Jan

The plan is to consolidate the 5 eyes countries as US protectorates, Australia UK NZ come into the Overton window behind less reachy Canada/Greenland

Slow drip > flood

Article V Convention theory has never been more on track...

#835195

reply
34 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bitcoiner1 13 Jan

I thought the plan was to build a wall....

reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @HardMoney 13 Jan

Don’t forget Canada

reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @7e6e393a56 13 Jan

Let's assume that your threats are real and not fantasy and reflect on what would happen to the United States and the consequences.

Would anyone wage direct war by forming a coalition against the United States?
I don't think so

Would the UN sanction the United States, given that the currency used throughout the world, at least in the coming years, is the dollar?
I don't think so

The UN was against the United States' military action against Afghanistan, and what was against the United States...

Regarding the approach of billionaires from the technology sector, I believe it is to influence the government to create protectionist barriers against China using American state power, as this is a much safer way of acting for them

reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 13 Jan

God to love what this man just throws out there

reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @herschel 13 Jan

It's mostly art of the deal talk. US companies have essentially all the lithium contracts there. As well as a lot of other things we need for microchips, including silver silver silver. He wants to be sure that Denmark doesn't gouge. He probably wants to make a special arrangement so they don't take as much. That would be a way to get them to think twice. We probably would go directly to the people and offer them independence if the Danes don't play ball, though. It is rather important to make this deal because it would keep us out of a lot of the resource conflicts with China in other parts of the world. Since the people there like us, and it's proximal, it really does make a lot of sense. Maybe an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine.

Panama is no big deal. China is all about a new canal in Nicaragua, they'll back off the Panama Canal, that will go off without a hitch, imo. The question is how does our Govt feel about China all up in Nicaragua? I think we are going to be getting used to a Trump pronunciation of 'Nicaragua' soon.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Jan

Greenland yes

Panama yes absolutely vehemently

We built Panama and the Canal

reply