Trump floats claims for Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal (Update: Trump wants Gaza too) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Oh, but he's only joking - well, maybe, so they say. Or sort of joking with Canada, and maybe not joking with Greenland - saying that "ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity" doesn't sound like a joke . . . and um, not sure about what the about Panama Canal thing is?

Trump Jokes Canada Becoming 51st US State 'A Great Idea'

US President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday it would be "a great idea" for Canada to become the 51st US state, teasing on social media that "many Canadians" welcome the idea, as Ottawa is wracked by a political crisis.

www.barrons.com

Trump threatens to try to take back the Panama Canal. Panama's president balks at the suggestion

Trump didn't explain how such a takeover would be possible, given that the U.S. relinquished control of the canal to Panama in 1999 under a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.

apnews.com

 

[TampaJoe]

So you think the answer is US occupation? Simple question - yes or no.

What do you not understand about the statement “I don’t have the answer”?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That’s where we are. So where do we go from here?

We stay out of it until leadership and a reasonably large percentage of the population recognizes everyone's right in that region to live without the expectation of terror, with the expectation of property rights, and with the expectation that they have a government that represents them fairly. Until the parties agree to that and make real proposals along those lines, we cut off our funding.

 

[efil4]

What do you not understand about the statement “I don’t have the answer”?

so you cant answer if US occupation of Gaza is right thing to do to promote peace?

you dont even offer a thought? Just " i dont have an answer"?

how bout this- does US PRESENCE in the ME promote peace? yes or no?

 

[Optimus Prime]

What do you not understand about the statement “I don’t have the answer”?

The situation is and has always been very complicated

I don’t know a whole lot about world politics and dynamics, especially in that region

I don’t know what the answer is

But if someone were to suggest killing all the Palenstine people problem solved I know for damn sure that’s not the answer

So do you think US occupation should be a possible answer?

 

[RobF]

What do you not understand about the statement “I don’t have the answer”?

It's the bit where you just "nuh uh" all the other answers that people do have.

It's a very childish game you play, where you try to say you're not pushing a particular answer - voting for Trump, ethnic cleansing in Gaza, etc. - while simultaneously arguing that all the other answers are, for various spurious reasons, impossible or unacceptable.

As has been shown on many occasions, literally everyone here can see right through it, so I'm not quite sure why you're still doing it.

 

[TampaJoe]

We stay out of it until leadership and a reasonably large percentage of the population recognizes everyone's right in that region to live without the expectation of terror, with the expectation of property rights, and with the expectation that they have a government that represents them fairly. Until the parties agree to that and make real proposals along those lines, we cut off our funding.

I doubt you would find a majority in either party that would favor cutting funding to the Israelis. Trump won’t do it and I highly doubt that Biden or Harris would have done it.

That said, maybe some middle ground may be found. I dunno. Maybe a two state solution that includes some kind of peacekeeping force? It’s hard to say what alternatives the Palestinians might accept if faced with resettlement.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I doubt you would find a majority in either party that would favor cutting funding to the Israelis. Trump won’t do it and I highly doubt that Biden or Harris would have done it.

That said, maybe some middle ground may be found. I dunno. Maybe a two state solution that includes some kind of peacekeeping force? It’s hard to say what alternatives the Palestinians might accept if faced with resettlement.

At this point I don't think you'll get a majority of anyone to agree on anything going on there. But I do think the American people as a whole are kind of sick of the whole thing.

Ultimately the problem is that Israel was created in a space where there was an existing population that wanted their own government there. Israel has militarily defeated the population but can never offer them citizenship because then they could outvote the Jewish population, so they just occupy them militarily. History is pretty unambiguous when it comes to military occupations... people will continuously push back against that, and often violently.

So the solutions are genocide/ethnic cleansing, or withdrawal and allow the creation of viable Palestinian state. That's pretty much it.

 

[TampaJoe]

It's the bit where you just "nuh uh" all the other answers that people do have.

It's a very childish game you play, where you try to say you're not pushing a particular answer - voting for Trump, ethnic cleansing in Gaza, etc. - while simultaneously arguing that all the other answers are, for various spurious reasons, impossible or unacceptable.

As has been shown on many occasions, literally everyone here can see right through it, so I'm not quite sure why you're still doing it.

Except I didn’t vote for Trump. As for ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians attacked Israel. What did they expect? Their hands aren’t clean. Let’s not pretend they are.

But the situation on the ground is what it is. So the question is where to go from here. There are no easy answers. I haven’t heard them from Trump nor have you offered up anything viable.

It’s obvious to me that the Israelis and Palestinians are incapable of achieving peace on their own. The two state solution hasn’t worked and has been discussed for decades. I, personally, don’t believe it’s possible for them to live side by side. If a viable solution can be found where that happens, then I’m all for it. Haven’t heard one yet. Not from Trump. Not from Biden. Not from Harris. Not from you.

There is no easy solution. That is just the fact. The Palestinians are in an extremely weak position. That is also a fact. That doesn’t mean anyone endorses ethnic cleansing. That is just an ignorant stupid statement that gets us nowhere.

 

[TampaJoe]

The situation is and has always been very complicated

I don’t know a whole lot about world politics and dynamics, especially in that region

I don’t know what the answer is

But if someone were to suggest killing all the Palenstine people problem solved I know for damn sure that’s not the answer

So do you think US occupation should be a possible answer?

I don’t know how that works. I guess anything is possible. But such a suggestion is highly complicated. It would require funding which requires congressional approval. It would require agreement among the various parties in the region including Israel and the Palestinians. Further, I would be concerned that terrorism in that area would continue.

I would prefer seeing an international solution rather than a US solution.

We are going to have to figure things out. There is two million people living in devastation that will take years and billions to cleanup and rebuild.

 

[efil4]

I would prefer seeing an international solution rather than a US solution.

thats an answer. somewhat non-committal, but an answer nonetheless.

So you would rather the US take a back seat to any sort of solution to Gaza, if that precludes us from "developing" Gaza, right?

But you are ok with US troop involvement, if need be?

 

[coldseat]

Except I didn’t vote for Trump. As for ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians attacked Israel. What did they expect? Their hands aren’t clean. Let’s not pretend they are.

But the situation on the ground is what it is. So the question is where to go from here. There are no easy answers. I haven’t heard them from Trump nor have you offered up anything viable.

It’s obvious to me that the Israelis and Palestinians are incapable of achieving peace on their own. The two state solution hasn’t worked and has been discussed for decades. I, personally, don’t believe it’s possible for them to live side by side. If a viable solution can be found where that happens, then I’m all for it. Haven’t heard one yet. Not from Trump. Not from Biden. Not from Harris. Not from you.

There is no easy solution. That is just the fact. The Palestinians are in an extremely weak position. That is also a fact. That doesn’t mean anyone endorses ethnic cleansing. That is just an ignorant stupid statement that gets us nowhere.

Is it just a reflective, uncontrollable reaction for you to have to mention Biden and Harris every time, even though they are not in power and have no voice/control over what happens next.

Israel could be forced into a solution just as much as you state the Palestinians can be. The US just has to get its head out of its arse and stop being Israel's birch and actually wave around some of that influence we have over them. Cut of the spicket of money and force them into a deal where they actually have to act in good faith. Israel falls apart without the US. It's not like the Europeans are going to be rushing in to save them. Ditto that with Russia, China and any other world power.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From “problematic” to “a couple of kinks in that Slinky” to “a bit of a stretch”, reaction from Republicans who weighed in on Donald Trump’sproposal to “own” Gaza was mixed on Wednesday, while some senior party leaders gave their blessing.

Some of the strongest criticism came from Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator who posted his opposition to the president’s plan on X on Wednesday morning.

“The pursuit for peace should be that of the Israelis and the Palestinians. I thought we voted for America First,” Paul wrote.

“We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood.”


His comments contradicted those of Mike Johnson, the House speaker, who said he was backing Trump’s proposal.

“We’re trying to get the details of it but I think this is a good development,” he told Manu Raju, CNN’s chief congressional congressional correspondent.

“We have to back Israel 100%. So whatever form that takes, we’re interested in having that discussion. It’s a surprising development, but I think it’s one that we’ll applaud.”……..

Republicans conflicted on Trump’s pitch to ‘own’ Gaza: ‘I thought we voted for America First’

Some senior party leaders call Trump’s vow that the US will ‘take over’ Gaza ‘problematic’ while others approve

www.theguardian.com

 

[TampaJoe]

thats an answer. somewhat non-committal, but an answer nonetheless.

So you would rather the US take a back seat to any sort of solution to Gaza, if that precludes us from "developing" Gaza, right?

But you are ok with US troop involvement, if need be?

I don’t have a problem with the US participating or even “spearheading” a larger international solution in rebuilding Gaza nor would I oppose US forces participating as peacekeepers as part of an international solution. Depends on the specifics.

Bottomline, I’m open to any suggestion that delivers results. I don’t see that allowing Palestinians to occupy Gaza without some kind of peacekeeping force will do anything but lead to another eventual Nov 6. I think it goes without saying that any Palestinian govt would have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and Hamas and Hezboullah would be out of the question.

 

[RobF]

.... Joe, you're literally doing the thing I just said you do, in response to me saying you do it. Look:

Except I didn’t vote for Trump.

That's not an 'except'! That's literally what I'm saying you do. You say, "I'm not arguing for this," then argue that all the other answers are, for various spurious reasons, impossible or unacceptable.

Like this:

As for ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians attacked Israel. What did they expect? Their hands aren’t clean. Let’s not pretend they are.

So here you're literally saying the Palestinians should expect ethnic cleansing and implying they deserve it.

But the situation on the ground is what it is. So the question is where to go from here. There are no easy answers. I haven’t heard them from Trump nor have you offered up anything viable.

Here, you're doing the token "no easy answers from anyone" bit by way of arguing that you're not making an argument, before you:

It’s obvious to me that the Israelis and Palestinians are incapable of achieving peace on their own.

Argue a third-party has to take over.

The two state solution hasn’t worked and has been discussed for decades. I, personally, don’t believe it’s possible for them to live side by side. If a viable solution can be found where that happens, then I’m all for it. Haven’t heard one yet. Not from Trump. Not from Biden. Not from Harris. Not from you.

And say it's not possible for them to live side by side, offering a token "I'd be for it if there was a way!" before immediately saying you've never heard of any such solution.

That is a de facto argument for ethnic cleansing. If you don't think they can live side by side, then you're arguing for one side to be removed. You say you're not arguing for it, but you say you believe any other solution is impossible. That's an argument for it. And then you:

There is no easy solution. That is just the fact. The Palestinians are in an extremely weak position. That is also a fact.

Reiterate that the Palestinians, who as you've already said should 'expect' ethnic cleansing, are the ones who should be removed.

That doesn’t mean anyone endorses ethnic cleansing. That is just an ignorant stupid statement that gets us nowhere.

Before of course saying you're not arguing for ethnic cleansing (although you'll inevitably attempt to be pedantic about your usage of the word 'endorse' even though the overall context is entirely clear), even though you've literally just done that.

At no point do you say, "Trump's solution is unacceptable and impossible because ethnic cleansing is unacceptable and could never work." You say that about a two party solution, but not about ethnic cleansing. That in itself speaks volumes.

Are you somehow unaware that you're doing this? Like, it's basically just one big "I'm not racist but <something racist>" type argument. Like a racist who thinks racist things but knows they shouldn't be racist so just says the racist things while insisting they're not racist, are you just stuck in this, "I totally do think the Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Gaza, but I am also aware ethnic cleansing is bad and not something I should be thinking, so I'm going to find myself arguing for it while simultaneously claiming I'm not doing it" thing?

I suppose you're going to reply to this by doing the exact same thing again.

 

[TampaJoe]

.... Joe, you're literally doing the thing I just said you do, in response to me saying you do it. Look:


That's not an 'except'! That's literally what I'm saying you do. You say, "I'm not arguing for this," then argue that all the other answers are, for various spurious reasons, impossible or unacceptable.

Like this:

So here you're literally saying the Palestinians should expect ethnic cleansing and implying they deserve it.


Here, you're doing the token "no easy answers from anyone" bit by way of arguing that you're not making an argument, before you:


Argue a third-party has to take over.


And say it's not possible for them to live side by side, offering a token "I'd be for it if there was a way!" before immediately saying you've never heard of any such solution.

That is a de facto argument for ethnic cleansing. If you don't think they can live side by side, then you're arguing for one side to be removed. You say you're not arguing for it, but you say you believe any other solution is impossible. That's an argument for it. And then you:


Reiterate that the Palestinians, who as you've already said should 'expect' ethnic cleansing, are the ones who should be removed.


Before of course saying you're not arguing for ethnic cleansing (although you'll inevitably attempt to be pedantic about your usage of the word 'endorse' even though the overall context is entirely clear), even though you've literally just done that.

At no point do you say, "Trump's solution is unacceptable and impossible because ethnic cleansing is unacceptable and could never work." You say that about a two party solution, but not about ethnic cleansing. That in itself speaks volumes.

Are you somehow unaware that you're doing this? Like, it's basically just one big "I'm not racist but <something racist>" type argument. Like a racist who thinks racist things but knows they shouldn't be racist so just says the racist things while insisting they're not racist, are you just stuck in this, "I totally do think the Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Gaza, but I am also aware ethnic cleansing is bad and not something I should be thinking, so I'm going to find myself arguing for it while simultaneously claiming I'm not doing it" thing?

I suppose you're going to reply to this by doing the exact same thing again.

You just spend a whole lot of effort putting words in my mouth. How bout you spend all that time talking about what you want instead of trying to tell me what I want or mean. I don’t pull that crap with you.

First I was responding to a post that appeared to say I voted for Trump. I did not. Never have.

Second, I don’t accept that what is happening over there is ethnic cleansing. One tribe attacked the other, murdered innocent men women and children and kidnapped a number more and is still holding them for ransom. They should expect retaliation of some sort up to and including complete destruction of Hamas. That in no way means I either accept or condone ethnic cleansing. To say otherwise is dishonest and stupid.

Is this brutal. Yep. It’s violent. Such is the nature of war. But I don’t see the Israelis marching Palestinians to gas chambers or ovens nor do I see them lining them up and executing them. When you launch an attack on a neighbor, you run the risk of losing your territory.

Similarly, saying that the parties aren’t capable of reaching a settlement on their own does not equate to a third party “taking over”. The Camp David accords didn’t require a takeover. The Abraham agreements didn’t require a takeover. People mediated disputes everyday all over the world without taking over. They aren’t going to get there on their own. I would prefer to see an international effort but would accept a US lead effort if it is feasible and acceptable to the parties.

I will post as I choose. If you don’t like my style, you are free to ignore me. It won’t hurt my feelings. I haven’t called anyone a communist or a socialist nor have I claimed anyone here wants to overthrow the government or take over the world. I would appreciate the same consideration. Those are just BS talking points that lead nowhere. So how about you lay off the ethnic cleansing racial BS. It’s old. It’s tired. It doesn’t work anymore.

 

[SaintRob]

You just spend a whole lot of effort putting words in my mouth. How bout you spend all that time talking about what you want instead of trying to tell me what I want or mean. I don’t pull that crap with you.

First I was responding to a post that appeared to say I voted for Trump. I did not. Never have.

Second, I don’t accept that what is happening over there is ethnic cleansing. One tribe attacked the other, murdered innocent men women and children and kidnapped a number more and is still holding them for ransom. They should expect retaliation of some sort up to and including complete destruction of Hamas. That in no way means I either accept or condone ethnic cleansing. To say otherwise is dishonest and stupid.

Is this brutal. Yep. It’s violent. Such is the nature of war. But I don’t see the Israelis marching Palestinians to gas chambers or ovens nor do I see them lining them up and executing them. When you launch an attack on a neighbor, you run the risk of losing your territory.

Similarly, saying that the parties aren’t capable of reaching a settlement on their own does not equate to a third party “taking over”. The Camp David accords didn’t require a takeover. The Abraham agreements didn’t require a takeover. People mediated disputes everyday all over the world without taking over. They aren’t going to get there on their own. I would prefer to see an international effort but would accept a US lead effort if it is feasible and acceptable to the parties.

I will post as I choose. If you don’t like my style, you are free to ignore me. It won’t hurt my feelings. I haven’t called anyone a communist or a socialist nor have I claimed anyone here wants to overthrow the government or take over the world. I would appreciate the same consideration. Those are just BS talking points that lead nowhere. So how about you lay off the ethnic cleansing racial BS. It’s old. It’s tired. It doesn’t work anymore.

First, Hamas =/= Palestine. Palestine is a region and it's people. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are not interchangeable terms. Eradicating Hamas could be a goal, but that does not include all Palestinians and the removal of them.

Here is the definition of Ethnic Cleansing:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. This can involve direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, as well as indirect methods aimed at forced migration, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

This is exactly what is being proposed by Trump, other than the inclusions of murder, rape, and (arguably) property destruction.

This is not to argue with you, it's to set a few things straight that I found not quite accurate in your response.

 

[RobF]

You just spend a whole lot of effort putting words in my mouth. How bout you spend all that time talking about what you want instead of trying to tell me what I want or mean. I don’t pull that crap with you.

I quoted each and every part so people can see that's what you said. Because "I didn't say that," is the other thing you constantly do. You did say that. You could say, "I didn't mean that," but the words you said clearly have the implications given to them.

First I was responding to a post that appeared to say I voted for Trump. I did not. Never have.

Speaking of "not putting words in other peoples' mouths", you did not respond to a post saying you voted for Trump. The post you replied gave an example of "voting for Trump" as something you say you don't support, while you simultaneously argue the alternatives are unacceptable.

Second, I don’t accept that what is happening over there is ethnic cleansing. One tribe attacked the other, murdered innocent men women and children and kidnapped a number more and is still holding them for ransom. They should expect retaliation of some sort up to and including complete destruction of Hamas. That in no way means I either accept or condone ethnic cleansing. To say otherwise is dishonest and stupid.

And then you move the goalposts. Here you're switching from Trump's proposed ethnic cleansing of Gaza, where the population is moved 'somewhere else' while the US takes over and redevelops it, which is what we're talking about, to avoiding talking about that and instead pretending we were all talking about what's happened up to now.

Is this brutal. Yep. It’s violent. Such is the nature of war. But I don’t see the Israelis marching Palestinians to gas chambers or ovens nor do I see them lining them up and executing them. When you launch an attack on a neighbor, you run the risk of losing your territory.

Here you're throwing in a quick justification of ethnic cleansing again.

Similarly, saying that the parties aren’t capable of reaching a settlement on their own does not equate to a third party “taking over”. The Camp David accords didn’t require a takeover. The Abraham agreements didn’t require a takeover. People mediated disputes everyday all over the world without taking over. They aren’t going to get there on their own. I would prefer to see an international effort but would accept a US lead effort if it is feasible and acceptable to the parties.

You actually said that they're "incapable of achieving peace on their own" and that you "don't believe it's possible for them to live side by side", in the context of Trump's proposed ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

I will post as I choose. If you don’t like my style, you are free to ignore me. It won’t hurt my feelings. I haven’t called anyone a communist or a socialist nor have I claimed anyone here wants to overthrow the government or take over the world. I would appreciate the same consideration. Those are just BS talking points that lead nowhere. So how about you lay off the ethnic cleansing racial BS. It’s old. It’s tired. It doesn’t work anymore.

And here you're doing the old, "I'll post as a choose!" bit. I know you will. One of the consequences of that is other people posting how they choose in response, which in my case, is pointing out exactly what you're posting.

This is a forum. It's not a verbal conversation. We can literally quote you and everyone can see the exact words you said. "I didn't say that," just doesn't work here. You can, of course, still choose to post things and then claim you didn't, but people are still going to point it out.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You just spend a whole lot of effort putting words in my mouth. How bout you spend all that time talking about what you want instead of trying to tell me what I want or mean. I don’t pull that crap with you.

First I was responding to a post that appeared to say I voted for Trump. I did not. Never have.

Second, I don’t accept that what is happening over there is ethnic cleansing. One tribe attacked the other, murdered innocent men women and children and kidnapped a number more and is still holding them for ransom. They should expect retaliation of some sort up to and including complete destruction of Hamas. That in no way means I either accept or condone ethnic cleansing. To say otherwise is dishonest and stupid.

Is this brutal. Yep. It’s violent. Such is the nature of war. But I don’t see the Israelis marching Palestinians to gas chambers or ovens nor do I see them lining them up and executing them. When you launch an attack on a neighbor, you run the risk of losing your territory.

Similarly, saying that the parties aren’t capable of reaching a settlement on their own does not equate to a third party “taking over”. The Camp David accords didn’t require a takeover. The Abraham agreements didn’t require a takeover. People mediated disputes everyday all over the world without taking over. They aren’t going to get there on their own. I would prefer to see an international effort but would accept a US lead effort if it is feasible and acceptable to the parties.

I will post as I choose. If you don’t like my style, you are free to ignore me. It won’t hurt my feelings. I haven’t called anyone a communist or a socialist nor have I claimed anyone here wants to overthrow the government or take over the world. I would appreciate the same consideration. Those are just BS talking points that lead nowhere. So how about you lay off the ethnic cleansing racial BS. It’s old. It’s tired. It doesn’t work anymore.

Did you just realize six months ago that a world outside of the US existed? I ask because your view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is woefully simplistic.