this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
251 points (98.8% liked)

World News

43954 readers
3714 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago

In the interests of national security we should always have a plan to seize the Panama Canal because of its strategic importance during a war. It would be irresponsible to not have such a plan.

But this is irresponsible on a completely different level. This is "let's invade Iraq" level stupidity. Trump ran on not having started any wars in his prior term. He ran on ending existing wars. Now that he is in he has talked about starting wars with all our neighbors and other allies. He doesn't call them wars but that's what they would be.

Here is a map of each place he has threatened. Instead of protecting our national security he is a threat to it. The president is a threat to national security. We got here because the cult of personality was determined to defeat the opposition even if they destroyed themselves in the process. They have fucked us all to own the libs. Even if Trump left office today it would take us decades to recover from the damage he has done to us.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 hours ago

"Panama should abandon its accommodating policy towards the U.S., which can only lead to escalating demands"

Why do countries have to figure this out so slowly

[–] [email protected] 87 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

The US is threatening to invade a democratic nation and nobody seems to care. Where are all the freedom loving dudebros on this? Subjugating free countries is okay now? This is so exhausting

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago

Unless someone is in the military and has access to the things, there is fuck all we as citizens can do.

Checks instance name

Best we can hope for is Trump getting too distracted playing Minecraft to pay any attention to Panama.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

They've been subjugating the Middle East to their bullshit for half a century, it's a normal day at this point

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

And Africa, Central and South America, Asia and basically everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 hours ago

First time?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

Right? We should focus on Iraq…

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Watch for any movement / build up of troops. He could still be bluffing here, but this is more than what he's done for other places as far as I'm aware. His actions and orders from here out will be much more telling than any of his words will be

[–] [email protected] 85 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

The minute we set foot in a sovereign country with intent to seize, we’ll be sanctioned into the ground by NATO. It will be completely warranted, yet Trump will somehow convince MAGA that they’re ‘attacking’ us economically.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

Of all the people to blindly believe and follow, why him? Absolutely nothing I've seen about him even hints a wisp of "you can trust me" vibe. Did he do something amazing on The Apprentice? I never watched that screen feces, so I don't know what was portrayed. I can only assume it was something spellbinding and miraculous based on the cultist compulsion millions of human brains seem to exhibit.

Or did they all just hate Hillary Clinton or Obama SO MUCH that it permanently broke their brains?

[–] Reverendender 21 points 8 hours ago

He tells the shitty people that their hate is good and proper, so they convince themselves that his actions are correct.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 hours ago

Or did they all just hate Hillary Clinton or Obama SO MUCH that it permanently broke their brains?

don't underestimate how incredibly racist and sexist some parts of the states are

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago

Of all the people to blindly believe and follow, why him?

Trump openly promises fascism in terms stupid enough that fascists can understand.

There's not much more to it.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I assume you mean a western country with intent to seize, because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO supported those campaigns.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 hours ago

To be clear, NATO had no role in the invasion of Iraq, but UK and some other NATO members were part of the coalition.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

I did mean seize, not invade. I fixed the comment. Thank you for the correction.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

NATO can’t sanction the US.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

While NATO's Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, it does not mandate a specific response, but rather each member decides what actions it deems necessary to assist the attacked member.

Besides, Panama is not a NATO member.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

That clause is null and void between member states to prevent a WW1 situation.

Also, Panama isn't a member and would be defending, not invading.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

that's not really relevant here since panama isn't a NATO member

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

That’s true. It would apply to Canada and Denmark though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

Sure, but they won’t.