Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Foreign Policy Crystal Ball

With all this talk about taking Greenland and the Panama Canal, the next US administration seems to feel it is fine for strong countries to take what they want from weaker countries. No doubt this would apply to Russia and China, too. Ukraine? Taiwan? I think I smell a deal, if our next President can manage it.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
Taking Greenland/Panama/Canada is to cover the soon to be announced American withdrawal from Ukraine. Kind of like Reagan attacking Grenada to cover the loss of the barracks in Lebanon.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955

Comparing Grenada to Greenland is sort of like comparing Fort Saskatchewan to Edmonton.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@beckyromero I bet that made a lot more sense in your mind that it does to mine. I am talking about the deflection of the American mind's attention not the size of the island being invaded. America could still be great even though it got blown up in Beirut because it could still kick a tiny island. America can still be great even as it beats a hasty retreat out of Ukraine if it takes over the biggest island in the world! All 50000 people there will be glad to be American.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955

It wasn't "Wag the Dog" moment.

In Beriut, the U.S. military was DIRECTLY involved.

The battleship USS New Jersey blasted terrorist positions with 16" shells and the aircraft carriers USS John F. Kennedy and USS Independence launched repeated airstrikes.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@beckyromero The fact is that the US was embarrassed in Lebanon. It left a scar on the American psyche. Reagan decided to make Americans proud of themselves again by beating up Grenada. Trump is about to do the same thing when the US abandons Ukraine to that wily Putin.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955

Except it's also quite likely we would have invaded Grenada anyway, Beruit or no Beruit.

It's not a mutually exclusive scenario.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@beckyromero If you say so. I would tend to disagree. There was really no reason to invade and nothing was gained by invading. All it would have had to do was to pull the American students and let Grenada do Grenada. The silly idea that the US is some city on the hill promoting democracy around the world has been debunked'like the Red under every Bed was debunked. The reds weren't under the beds. They were and are teaching in the universities or else in congress! At least one of them became the POTUS!
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955

😂

You, Bernie Sanders and Jesse Jackson in agreement in opposing the invasion.

The invasion took place six days after the execution of Prime Minister of Maurice Bishop. Sure, plans had been in place. But the timing? It was a year after the Beruit bombings.

Oh, and I agree that there are socialists in Congress, perhaps even a small number who are communists at heart. And, sure, there are socialists and probably a good numbers of communists teaching in universities. But is that illegal? if they're not advocating the violent overthrow of the government, then no.

But, no, we haven't even had a socialist president, led alone a communist one.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@beckyromero So why were you in favour of the invasion? Grenada is no threat to the US. Maybe if the US learned to stay home instead of trying to fight every war the world would be more peaceful.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955

I wasn't "in favor" of the invasion at the time since it happened two years before I was born.

But from what I understand, Reagan was concerned about American students possibly being taken hostage given that a violent coup was underway. This was happening just four years after the Iran hostage crisis began.

So, in retrospect, I can understand why he ordered it.

Might the invasion been more limited? Perhaps. But why take chances and risk higher casualities among our forces?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@beckyromero The students were not in danger. There was no need to invade. Reagan never lived it down. Kind of like a 300 lbs bully beating up a paraplegic.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hippyjoe1955
The students were not in danger.

Intelligence was likely limited.

The Queen reportedly wasn't happy about the invasion.

I wonder what she'd say about Trump wanting to take over Canada? 😂
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Nor have you any knowledge about them:

- Her Majesty kept her political views very private; but anyway throughout her reign the USA was not waffling about wanting to annexe Canada or part of Panama. Nor Greenland until 2016.

- Her children were NOT "inbred"; and nor are her grandchildren. She and her husband had totally different ancestries even by country (hers partly German, his Greek). Anyway, incest is illegal in the United Kingdom.

- King Charles knows considerably more about the world than you sneeringly imply.

If you are going to criticise other countries' constitutional systems at least be civilised about it, and use facts not ignorance.


(Donald Trump talked about wanting Greenland back in 2016, without explaining why. This seemed to puzzle many people, including me until I studied an atlas and thought about Trump's election- campaigning dogma. I don't recollect him mentioning Canada or Panama though, in his first term.

The Queen was still alive in 2016 when Trump came to the UK on a State Visit. I had the impression he invited himself, and then managed to insult his hosts by suggesting the USA should take over Britain's National Health Service. Not by copying its principles to create an American equivalent, against Republican Party ideology, but to use it as an overseas commercial asset.

The Queen is thought to have been unimpressed by Trump but was discreet and polite enough to keep her feelings to herself. The Monarch's relationship with foreign leaders is as Heads of State; leaving the political dealings to the Government and Diplomatic Service.)
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell Yeah you can keep your inbreds to yourself. I have no use for them. I certainly don't want Camilla's sanitary pad delivering the drone from the throne when the Canadian parliament comes back into session. In fact I don't want the Canadian parliament to ever meet again. It is dangerous to Canadian lives and values. Kind of like king upChuck that way.