3 ms·
The question was “Greenland and Panama” and the answer was “I wouldn’t rule anything out”. It requires a pretty hard squint to convert that into a threat “to in
by erulabs 2y ago
The question was “Greenland and Panama” and the answer was “I wouldn’t rule anything out”. It requires a pretty hard squint to convert that into a threat “to invade a few NATO allies”. This sort of intentional misunderstanding of an exaggeration does so much more harm than good.
A western defense system that excludes the USA is naive at best.
- FireBeyond 2y agoIt’s not a hard squint. If these countries were our allies the answer would be “I have no idea why you would even be thinking that question”, not “we won’t rule anything out”.
- erulabs 2y agoNot ruling anything out is not a threat. Panama is not a NATO country. One is not a few. ‘Military options’ is not synonymous with invasion. “Invading” is a funny term for an area currently occupied by several US major military bases. The list continues. I hate to sound snarky, and I mean this genuinely, but forcing people to defend someone is not a way to generate allies. A decade of “what he actually said was” is enough to turn even the most strident progressives towards the middle at least.