[blackeyeblitzar]

> the leader we have right now is also a coward and a bully

These labels are being misapplied in my opinion. What people saw after the first assassination attempt was the opposite of cowardice, and I think it helped Trump win. As for bullying - there’s certainly some. But you can also look at how Biden bullied private companies to implement the Democrat’s censorship machine and find that bullying appears in many forms. Is the EU any better? Given their love of censorship and slip towards authoritarianism, I don’t think so. What about Canada? We saw their authoritarian handling of protests, where they literally denied protesters access to financial assets, and I view that as extreme bullying.

> He might be willing to go for a small country like Panama (and that would still be an _insane_ move)

Would it be insane? The canal was built by the US. It is a key part of economic and national security. Panama is violating treaties around its handover (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/1/senators-sound-alarm-...). Why do you think China is so upset about the recent sale to Blackrock? It’s because they have been quietly gaining control over the canal.

> the economies that are going to hurt the most are going to be those built on top of the US dollar as they have outsourced control over the fundamental tools you can use to stabilize your economy in rough times

I would say the opposite is true - they benefit from the world’s most powerful and best managed currency. That stability makes them resilient as well. Countries trade in dollars and accept debt in dollars for basic but well thought out reasons. They aren’t making irrational choices.

[idiotsecant]

Whataboutisim is the last thing I expect to see on HN.

Yes. Invading Panama, a peaceful democratic ally, would be insane. Let me clear that up for you.

[blackeyeblitzar]

Panama is not an ally of the US. Neither officially, or even unofficially if you consider all their recent cooperation with China. Violating a treaty in a way that affects national security would require a change from Panama or action from the US. Hopefully diplomatically, but if there’s no change, then maybe retaking the canal is the only sane outcome. To me the insane part is Panama building relations with a communist dictatorship in secret, undermining the conditions of the canal being handed to them.

[idiotsecant]

Panama has been us aligned and a huge trading partner since the late 80s. We don't have any mutual military aid pact or anything but we give them a substantial amount of aid and they give us favorable trading conditions through their sovereign property.

They are a sovereign state. They get to build relations with whoever they want. That's how sovereignty works. The way you win those countries over is with the use of soft power, something that China understands but seems to be outside the grasp of the current admin, who is banging around like a band of drunken apes.

[blackeyeblitzar]

They must abide by treaties, so no they don’t get to build relations with whoever they want. The canal’s handover came with requirements. If they don’t want to uphold those, and treaties mean nothing, why would their sovereignty be respected? But I do agree soft power is better and that the US government has poor strategy here and in general.

Also I’m not sure what you mean by “huge trade partner”. Panama isn’t even in the top 20 trade partners of the US.

[kannanvijayan]

> They must abide by treaties

You're somewhat mistaken with this assessment. The modern convention is that any treaty can be annulled simply by one of the parties declaring "what kind of idiot would have made this treaty".

It's worthwhile to stay informed on how modern global norms treat treaties.