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

World News

43954 readers
6221 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 4 points 41 minutes 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.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 30 points 6 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

[–] holdstrong@lemm.ee 86 points 9 hours ago (5 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

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 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.

[–] cool@lemmings.world 21 points 7 hours ago

The US is threatening to invade a democratic nation and nobody seems to care.

I mean, we're here discussing why it's wrong.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 8 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

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 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

[–] alkbch@lemmy.ml 18 points 8 hours ago

First time?

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Right? We should focus on Iraq…

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 31 points 7 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

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 85 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (4 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.

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 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@sh.itjust.works 21 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] FatsoJackson@lemmy.ml 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

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 9 points 7 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.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 20 points 8 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.

[–] seppoenarvi@lemmy.world 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.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Then Trump will be legally allowed to invade the hague.

"The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act",[4] since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.[5]"

EDIT - While I realize this doesn't apply to sanctions, it still sets a scary precedent for checking USA's actions.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago

Does the term “legally” even matter in US politics anymore?

[–] warm@kbin.earth 28 points 9 hours ago

International law couldnt give a fuck about that. That's like saying Russia could legally invade Ukraine if they have a law saying it's okay.

[–] alkbch@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

NATO can’t sanction the US.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 7 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/

[–] alkbch@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 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.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 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.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] alkbch@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

Sure, but they won’t.