Why is the US terrorizing Venezuela?

[titan_tim]

The voters are free to voice their discontent, either at the ballot box or by exercising their first amendment rights by assembling peaceably to redress grievances. The fact that discontent exists in no way delegitimizes the government’s pre-existing responsibilities.

That assumes this was a pre-existing responsibility, and it wasn’t. Trump never campaigned on any of this. If he said he was going to overthrow Venezuela, Greenland, Canada, etc he wouldn't have been elected. That's not a leader making the hard choices, that's them going off the rails.

 

[Foxi4]

That assumes this was a pre-existing responsibility, and it wasn’t. Trump never campaigned on any of this. If he said he was going to overthrow Venezuela, Greenland, Canada, etc he wouldn't have been elected. That's not a leader making the hard choices, that's them going off the rails.

Is a politician bound exclusively to what they promised during their campaign and cannot do anything else?

 

[titan_tim]

Is a politician bound exclusively to what they promised during their campaign and cannot do anything else?

Now it's a false dilemma fallacy. Saying a politician is either rule bound to only do what they promise vs them being able to do anything they want to.

Nobody is saying that presidents can't do things outside of their promises. But there's a HUGE difference between adapting to what voters signed up for and pursuing something voters clearly never consented to and would’ve rejected outright.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

See, this is why term limits are needed for electoral positions: in principle i agree with @Foxi4 , because representatives are, well, representatives, not delegates - AKA they are supposed to do their work beyond just doing what is popular, because what is popular or easy is not always right or in the interest of the state.

But this cannot happen if people can make a career out of politics. There needs to be a time limit after which, well, one should go, or go back, to do a proper job. Otherwise there will never be an incentive to do what's right, but only to do what's easy and popular.

 

[SeltzerMist]

I'd propose a single, 6 year term for all elected positions in the US. That'd solve a lot of issues in our government

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I'd propose a single, 6 year term for all elected positions in the US. That'd solve a lot of issues in our government

a single may be a bit short, but somehow 2 are already too many

 

[Magsor]

I feel for Venezuela. It's not about how the government works it's how corrupted the whole country is. You can't build anything good in a web of lies. Crimes have to be prosecuted and laws be fair.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-corrupt-countries

 

[titan_tim]

I'd propose a single, 6 year term for all elected positions in the US. That'd solve a lot of issues in our government

Not a terrible idea, but the biggest issue the US has is getting money out of politics entirely. No outside money. No doners. No interest groups. No PACs. No ability to buy stocks.

If that rule was passed, you'd see those old codgers quit instantly.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Not a terrible idea, but the biggest issue the US has is getting money out of politics entirely. No outside money. No doners. No interest groups. No PACs. No ability to buy stocks.

If that rule was passed, you'd see those old codgers quit instantly.

That too but not wasting time and money on reelection campaigns would be a positive.

Coming full circle, Trump would have been 1 and done and we probably wouldn't have picked a fight with Venezuela.

 

[titan_tim]

That too but not wasting time and money on reelection campaigns would be a positive.

Coming full circle, Trump would have been 1 and done and we probably wouldn't have picked a fight with Venezuela.

I was thinking about that. With the insane money that's spent on US elections, the government should step in and limit the time these people are allowed to campaign, and provide them with government paid TV time to get their message across.

Equal opportunity for all candidates and not just whoever can spend the most money to spam the electorate.

Post automatically merged: Jan 21, 2026

It's Taco Wednesday!!!

 

[EthanB]

What’s the false equivalence here? My initial position was that people in positions of power are not in a popularity contest and they should be more interested in correctly performing their duties than being people pleasers. What I got back was a bunch of gobbeldygook about me “not liking democracy”. My response to that is very simple - sometimes the government has to make tough decisions that are *not* popular in pursuit of a desirable outcome or perform duties that nobody likes because that’s what’s good and proper per the law of the land or otherwise necessary for the continued function of the country. “Liking” or “not liking” something comes secondary in the event of a higher calling. Some things are simply greater than any one of us individually.

Your whole spiel about taxes, etc. It's a false equivalence. They are in no way similar and can't be compared to the complexities of politics and democracy.

 

[Foxi4]

Now it's a false dilemma fallacy. Saying a politician is either rule bound to only do what they promise vs them being able to do anything they want to.

Nobody is saying that presidents can't do things outside of their promises. But there's a HUGE difference between adapting to what voters signed up for and pursuing something voters clearly never consented to and would’ve rejected outright.

Very few politicians in history could boast about successfully campaigning on “I’m going to war”. This is naturally a hypothetical since the U.S. *isn’t* at war with any of the countries listed, and that is not what Trump and his administration are “pursuing”. If I were to entertain the hypothetical, I’m still rather unconvinced, for all the reasons I listed above and more.

Nobody has a crystal ball, nor can they predict every eventuality. I doubt that Trump woke up one day in 2016 and thought to himself “y’know what’d be great? Invading Greenland” - that’s a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the protracted conflict in that region. The U.S. government has a vested interest in keeping Russia’s expansionist aspirations at a 10-foot pole’s length, and it’s not the first time a so far bloodless conflict erupts as a result of such territorial disputes - the first one was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. This time the idea is to be one step ahead and create a bulwark against invasion, and both Greenland and Canada have the unfortunate privilege of being in the geographical dead center of this hypothetical invasion path. I know it’s funny ha-ha business when we pretend that this isn’t a real possibility, but Germany marching through the heart of Europe was absurd until it happened too. The same applies to the invasion of Ukraine, and it’s clear Russia will not be satisfied with just that little morsel, this isn’t the first time they invade Ukraine. We have to put our big boy hats on for a moment and look at a map if you want your hypothetical to be addressed seriously.



It makes perfect tactical sense to have fortified missile silos, strong defenses and troops through the nose on deployment in the path of such a neighbour. Operating from the “my country first” position pursuing territory in both locations, ideally through diplomacy or outright land purchase, is step one in preparation for a potential worldwide conflict against a nuclear-capable foe. Does anyone *want* that? No, probably not, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We can have a protracted discussion about whether or not the negotiation position of “we need to have it by any means necessary” is a good way to go about it (it’s actually straight out of Trump’s playbook - always start negotiations from an untenable and unacceptable position and let your opponent negotiate you down to what you actually want), but it’s very clear where the interests of *the U.S.* in isolation lie. We can have another discussion about what concessions Greenland is already willing and able to make in terms of deployment (and they are very generous), but the logical end goal would be to have unfettered control over this land with zero oversight and zero red tape. What do you think the electorate would “like less” - very aggressive diplomacy or facing an existential threat from a hostile superpower?

The government, as an entity, needs to have some degree of leeway to manoeuvre in the global political stage. We trust our representatives to do just that - represent us and our interests. We can be very dissatisfied with how they do it, we should distrust and criticise them, I agree with all that. What you are saying *is* sound. What *I* am saying is that life is full of bitter pills. Forget your hypothetical for a moment and picture this - Russia, for some insane reason, decides to expand even further. You have Russian forces in Alaska, getting cozy. Trump stands by the podium addressing the nation, grabs a small piece of paper with his small hands and says:

“Ladies and gentlemen, people are saying the RUSSIANS are in our country. Now, let me tell you, I said no wars. No new wars, that’s what I said. Just let them have it, why do we want it? It’s just ice. We’re just going to give Alaska to the Russians - that’s what they want. Just got off the phone with Mr.Putin, what a tremendous guy, tremendous! There isn’t going to be a war, that’s what we agreed to. Promises kept!”

That’s absurd, and I hope you will agree with me here. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it tends to be. I think what you’re gathering from what I said is that politicians should be free to make false promises in order to be elected and then do whatever they want as soon as they get a sliver of power. That is not what I said - it’s a caricature. In fact, I even stated, either in this thread or one of the other ones related to Trump, that betraying the people’s trust is tantamount to treason and that Washington should have gallows along every street, not necessarily to hang politicians, but to keep them honest. As a reminder of their duty, because treason is punishable by death. My *actual* point is that once in power, politicians should not make their decisions based chiefly on popular sentiment because popular sentiment isn’t always right or conducive to the good of the country. It’s just popular in a snapshot in time. They’re duty-bound to serve the good of the country - that’s the goal.

See, this is why term limits are needed for electoral positions: in principle i agree with @Foxi4 , because representatives are, well, representatives, not delegates - AKA they are supposed to do their work beyond just doing what is popular, because what is popular or easy is not always right or in the interest of the state.

Very succinctly put. I actually *couldn’t* agree more. The good of the country is bigger than any one person, bigger than the collective at any given time and paramount. The country that we live in today will be inherited by future generations. Sometimes that means suffering a little bit today so that their yoke is lighter tomorrow.

Your whole spiel about taxes, etc. It's a false equivalence. They are in no way similar and can't be compared to the complexities of politics and democracy.

I disagree. All of those laws, rules and regulations exist because they were put in place by the government for a specific purpose. We operate on the assumption that they’re good for the country, and we vote accordingly whenever we want them to change. It’s all part of the machine that is democracy. Your voice can be heard, you can make meaningful changes via the democratic process, but expecting the government to change directions based on any random whim at any time is one step removed from total anarchy and mob rule. The electorate won’t *always* be happy, you can’t satisfy everyone at all times.

It's Taco Wednesday!!!

View attachment 552385

I read this post after writing the one above and had a hearty chuckle. This is perfectly in-line with what I expected and how Trump has always negotiated to get what he actually wanted from the start. Always let the other person negotiate you down, don’t start on the back foot.

 

[EthanB]

I disagree. All of those laws, rules and regulations exist because they were put in place by the government for a specific purpose. We operate on the assumption that they’re good for the country, and we vote accordingly whenever we want them to change. It’s all part of the machine that is democracy. Your voice can be heard, you can make meaningful changes via the democratic process, but expecting the government to change directions based on any random whim at any time is one step removed from total anarchy and mob rule. The electorate won’t *always* be happy, you can’t satisfy everyone at all times.

I don't think you quite understand the point.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't think you quite understand the point.

I fully understand the point. Nobody elected the lady at the DMV and she isn’t personally betraying the voter’s trust by dutiful doing her job according to its requirements. Nobody was sold a false bill of goods here. What is undoubtedly true though is that the lady at the DMV is there because of a series of unpopular, well-meaning decisions made by the government throughout history. The broader point is that the government has to do things that are unpopular sometimes, it can’t turn on its heel at the first sign of discontent and say “nobody likes the DMV, so we’re shutting the DMV down, let there be chaos” - that’s not serious governance.

 

[EthanB]

I fully understand the point. Nobody elected the lady at the DMV and she isn’t personally betraying the voter’s trust by dutiful doing her job according to its requirements. Nobody was sold a false bill of goods here. What is undoubtedly true though is that the lady at the DMV is there because of a series of unpopular, well-meaning decisions made by the government throughout history. The broader point is that the government has to do things that are unpopular sometimes, it can’t turn on its heel at the first sign of discontent and say “nobody likes the DMV, so we’re shutting the DMV down, let there be chaos” - that’s not serious governance.

Here's that false equivalence again.

 

[Foxi4]

Here's that false equivalence again.

Call it whatever you like, you’re the one aggressively misunderstanding the point, likely on purpose. The expectation that the government should only ever do things that “make the electorate happy” is unrealistic, silly and dangerous in the extreme - it’s a one-way street to removing all nuance from politics until only populism remains. The government’s sole purpose is to make decisions on behalf of the entire nation, having to make difficult choices is in the job description. This is especially obvious when facing binary choices that divide a nation - you can’t always make everyone happy. I’m not sure what the expectation here is - “oh, *insert hot button issue here*? Nah, we don’t want that heat, we’re just going to flip a coin” and blame the coin for the outcome? I’m sorry, but popular sentiment is not the be-all end-all of governance. In fact, sometimes politicians have to make a choice *nobody* likes, not because they themselves like it, but because they must in the absence of any better solution, for the good of the state. I’m sorry if this is some kind of alien concept, but that’s the reality of government.

a single may be a bit short, but somehow 2 are already too many

QED. It took all of two blinks of an eye and one fart for two people who normally agree to find something they disagree on. I think the *only sensible solution* would be to shut down the government - if we can’t make the electorate happy then what’s the point?

 

[titan_tim]

Very few politicians in history could boast about successfully campaigning on “I’m going to war”. This is naturally a hypothetical since the U.S. *isn’t* at war with any of the countries listed, and that is not what Trump and his administration are “pursuing”. If I were to entertain the hypothetical, I’m still rather unconvinced, for all the reasons I listed above and more.

Nobody has a crystal ball, nor can they predict every eventuality. I doubt that Trump woke up one day in 2016 and thought to himself “y’know what’d be great? Invading Greenland” - that’s a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the protracted conflict in that region. The U.S. government has a vested interest in keeping Russia’s expansionist aspirations at a 10-foot pole’s length, and it’s not the first time a so far bloodless conflict erupts as a result of such territorial disputes - the first one was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. This time the idea is to be one step ahead and create a bulwark against invasion, and both Greenland and Canada have the unfortunate privilege of being in the geographical dead center of this hypothetical invasion path. I know it’s funny ha-ha business when we pretend that this isn’t a real possibility, but Germany matching through the heart of Europe was absurd until it happened too. The same applies to the invasion of Ukraine, and it’s clear Russia will not be satisfied with just that little morsel, this isn’t the first time they invade Ukraine. We have to put our big boy hats on for a moment and look at a map if you want your hypothetical to be addressed seriously.

Now it's a red herring fallacy!!! What's next, an appeal to authority fallacy? Stay on target here! You're trying to change what is being justified. I'm focusing on democratic mandate and buy-in by the public while you're now trying to shift it to geopolitical necessity.

Threats can explain why leaders want to act, but they don’t create consent retroactively. If voters never authorized this scope of action, calling it “necessary leadership” doesn’t solve the mandate problem. It just ignores it completely.

I read this post after writing the one above and had a hearty chuckle. This is perfectly in-line with what I expected and how Trump has always negotiated to get what he actually wanted from the start. Always let the other person negotiate you down, don’t start on the back foot.

Man, this is just sad. If he does something absolutely insane and then backs off, he's playing 4d chess. If it completely blows up in his face diplomatically or economically, that's ignored.

In this case, the US looked insane, Denmark got publicly antagonized, markets took a huge hit, Canada got a standing ovation for saying that the rest of the world can't trust the US anymore, and Trump walked away with...... nothing. You're really at the point where you believe he can do no wrong.

Post automatically merged: Jan 21, 2026

This is especially obvious when facing binary choices that divide a nation - you can’t always make everyone happy.

This isn't really dividing the nation here. The overwhelming majority doesn't want any of this. But you're trying to justify it anyways.

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

Nobody *wants* to pay taxes, but the IRS exists to collect them regardless. Nobody *wants* to be arrested, but law enforcement agencies exist to, as the name suggests, enforce the law. Nobody *wants* to deal with city permits, but you still have to wait in line at city hall if you need something done. Nobody *enjoys* dealing with the DMV, but they have to deal with the DMV all the same. What the electorate “likes” doesn’t always align with what is good and proper because the government, from the bottom level of a lowly clerk to the very top, has to balance the interests of an entire nation.

As others have said: complete and total false equivalence. Nobody voted for paying for taxes, nobody voted for the DMV, and nobody voted for police. Those institutions have existed for over a hundred years. Plenty of people DID vote for not going to war. Whoops.

Also, taxes ARE popular, when they're applied to the rich and not the working class, as it should be.

Nobody has a crystal ball, nor can they predict every eventuality. I doubt that Trump woke up one day in 2016 and thought to himself “y’know what’d be great? Invading Greenland” - that’s a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the protracted conflict in that region. The U.S. government has a vested interest in keeping Russia’s expansionist aspirations at a 10-foot pole’s length, and it’s not the first time a so far bloodless conflict erupts as a result of such territorial disputes - the first one was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. This time the idea is to be one step ahead and create a bulwark against invasion, and both Greenland and Canada have the unfortunate privilege of being in the geographical dead center of this hypothetical invasion path. I know it’s funny ha-ha business when we pretend that this isn’t a real possibility, but Germany matching through the heart of Europe was absurd until it happened too. The same applies to the invasion of Ukraine, and it’s clear Russia will not be satisfied with just that little morsel, this isn’t the first time they invade Ukraine. We have to put our big boy hats on for a moment and look at a map if you want your hypothetical to be addressed seriously.

You are a complete and utter fool. Trump has done nothing but talk about Greenland's oil, minerals, and metals, and you think this is about Russia? Why would Russia be invited to Trump's so-called "board of peace" if the US had any animosity towards them? They've been working together for over a decade and you fucking know it.

It makes perfect tactical sense to have fortified missile silos, strong defenses and troops through the nose on deployment in the path of such a neighbour. Operating from the “my country first” position pursuing territory in both locations, ideally through diplomacy or outright land purchase, is step one in preparation for a potential worldwide conflict against a nuclear-capable foe. Does anyone *want* that? No, probably not, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We can have a protracted discussion about whether or not the negotiation position of “we need to have it by any means necessary” is a good way to go about it (it’s actually straight out of Trump’s playbook - always start negotiations from an untenable and unacceptable position and let your opponent negotiate you down to what you actually want), but it’s very clear where the interests of *the U.S.* in isolation lie. We can have another discussion about what concessions Greenland is already willing and able to make in terms of deployment (and they are very generous), but the logical end goal would be to have unfettered control over this land with zero oversight and zero red tape. What do you think the electorate would “like less” - very aggressive diplomacy or facing an existential threat from a hostile superpower?

You're also a fool if you think Denmark will "negotiate" for Greenland and that Trump can acquire Greenland by any means outside of brute force.

I'm sure Costello, a Frenchman, would love to hear how you'd like us to go to war with NATO in that scenario.

 

[Foxi4]

Now it's a red herring fallacy!!! What's next, an appeal to authority fallacy? Stay on target here! You're trying to change what is being justified. I'm focusing on democratic mandate and buy-in by the public while you're now trying to shift it to geopolitical necessity.

Threats can explain why leaders want to act, but they don’t create consent retroactively. If voters never authorized this scope of action, calling it “necessary leadership” doesn’t solve the mandate problem. It just ignores it completely.

You’re the one who introduced invasion of Greenland to the conversation, not me. I asked you a very simple question - what’s more important to the well-being of the public, doing something unpopular that prevents negative outcomes in the future or sticking to what is safe and facing those negative outcomes when it’s too late? If you don’t want to discuss *why* these concepts are on the table then we don’t have to, but you’re being disingenuous if you suggest that they’re on the table just for shits and pickles. There’s no red herring here - you’re just facing the music and you can’t dance.

Man, this is just sad. If he does something absolutely insane and then backs off, he's playing 4d chess. If it completely blows up in his face diplomatically or economically, that's ignored.

In this case, the US looked insane, Denmark got publicly antagonized, markets took a huge hit, Canada got a standing ovation for saying that the rest of the world can't trust the US anymore, and Trump walked away with...... nothing. You're really at the point where you believe he can do no wrong.

I didn’t know you were at the meeting and you’re familiar with the framework being discussed. More likely than not what he actually wanted was increased NATO military presence in the region - enough to nip any stupid ideas on the side of the Kremlin in the bud, but he asked for the moon instead, as he tends to do. This approach is literally described in the “Art of the Deal”, he calls it “Think Big”. The more common nomenclature is extreme anchoring - setting a high anchor point at the beginning of negotiations to create a large playing field for yourself, throw the opponent off-balance and create the illusion of leverage by displaying a willingness to “walk away” if no satisfactory middle point can be established. Of course that “middle point” is exactly what you wanted to begin with, but the opponent doesn’t need to know that. In fact, the opposite is true - the opponent should walk away thinking they’re a great negotiator who talked you down to a reasonable compromise, they should feel like they won while you walk all the way to the bank laughing. The outcome of this specific meeting is vague and what I’d like to see in the future is some real commitments from all the parties involved. I’m simply not surprised - this is his usual strategy.

As others have said: complete and total false equivalence. Nobody voted for paying for taxes, nobody voted for the DMV, and nobody voted for police. Those institutions have existed for over a hundred years. Plenty of people DID vote for not going to war. Whoops.

”These institutions are old so they don’t matter” - fun fact, the U.S. didn’t have a publicly funded full-time police force until 1838, it was first introduced in Boston. The country operated without “the police” for over half a century, it relied on volunteers, for-profit peacekeepers and other alternative means of law enforcement for over half a century. It *absolutely was* an issue “on the ballot” at one point in history, it didn’t just appear out of nowhere. The same applies to every single item on that list. Even *the income tax*, which is what people mean when they say they’re “paying taxes”, didn’t exist at the time of founding, it was a temporary measure to support the Civil War effort. The modern income tax didn’t exist until 1913 when Congress passed the 16th Amendment, so yes, very much an “on the ballot” sort of issue.

Also, taxes ARE popular, when they're applied to the rich and not the working class, as it should be.

Ah, it’s always popular when somebody else is paying.

You are a complete and utter fool. Trump has done nothing but talk about Greenland's oil, minerals, and metals, and you think this is about Russia? Why would Russia be invited to Trump's so-called "board of peace" if the US had any animosity towards them? They've been working together for over a decade and you fucking know it.

You're also a fool if you think the EU will "negotiate" for Greenland and that Trump can acquire Greenland by any means outside of brute force.

I'm sure Costello, a Frenchman, would love to hear how you'd like us to go to war with NATO.

Oh, I’m sure access to rare earth minerals, oil and metals is also very advantageous, especially in the event of war. This acquisition would have many benefits for the U.S., regardless of what the future holds, that cannot be denied. If I were Trump, I would stress those publicly as well instead of telling the Kremlin that I fully intend to start aiming my arsenal at the Bering Strait and the Arctic Ocean. History tells us that when neighbours find out you want to install missile sites on some remote island that happens to be in the way, an island like Cuba for instance, they get real cranky and land on the moon out of spite. You guys are so precious, you can’t see the forest for the trees. No matter, Trump wants to go to war with France over Greenland because it’s funny, let’s go with that.

EDIT: Please, I strongly urge you to tell him I said that. @Costello, you’re about to get a really funny PM, get the popcorn ready.

Not really. He’s a busy guy and probably won’t appreciate nonsense in his Inbox, this advice is a joke. Y’know, unless you reeeeally want to. I’m not your dad.

 

[titan_tim]

You’re the one who introduced invasion of Greenland to the conversation, not me. I asked you a very simple question - what’s more important to the well-being of the public, doing something unpopular that prevents negative outcomes in the future or sticking to what is safe and facing those negative outcomes when it’s too late? If you don’t want to discuss *why* these concepts are on the table then we don’t have to, but you’re being disingenuous if you suggest that they’re on the table just for shits and pickles. There’s no red herring here - you’re just facing the music and you can’t dance.

Now it's using loaded questions. You're on a roll! It's basically using the same false dilemma again. You’re saying 'either do something unpopular now or doom everyone later' which makes a huge assumption that the threat is inevitable and that the specific action being discussed is the only way to prevent it. So no, try again.

Of course I brought up Greenland! It's the same issue. it’s something voters clearly never agreed to and would have rejected. Explaining why someone might want to do it isn’t the same as explaining where the authority comes from to do it.

You're still talking about might-makes-right outcomes, where the rest of us are talking about the mandate issue. Stay focused.

I didn’t know you were at the meeting and you’re familiar with the framework being discussed. More likely than not what he actually wanted was increased NATO military presence in the region - enough to nip any stupid ideas on the side of the Kremlin in the bud, but he asked for the moon instead, as he tends to do. This approach is literally described in the “Art of the Deal”, he calls it “Think Big”. The more common nomenclature is extreme anchoring - setting a high anchor point at the beginning of negotiations to create a large playing field for yourself, throw the opponent off-balance and create the illusion of leverage by displaying a willingness to “walk away” if no satisfactory middle point can be established. Of course that “middle point” is exactly what you wanted to begin with, but the opponent doesn’t need to know that. In fact, the opposite is true - the opponent should walk away thinking they’re a great negotiator who talked you down to a reasonable compromise, they should feel like they won while you walk all the way to the bank laughing. The outcome of this specific meeting is vague and what I’d like to see in the future is some real commitments from all the parties involved. I’m simply not surprised - this is his usual strategy.

LOL! I CALLED IT! Citing the art of the deal is an appeal to authority fallacy! You're just doing the rounds now!

I can't say I know know what he “actually wanted,” and neither can you. You’re just retroactively assuming a strategy that makes the outcome look smart. I'm looking at the evidence of the outcome and seeing that he damaged the US economically and reputationally more than he helped it. In fact, he didn't help it at all. You DO know that the US is already allowed to have military presence in Iceland, right? This "agreement" is nothing more than him trying to save face after being put in his place.

In diplomacy, being unhinged doesn’t just set an anchor. All it does is burn goodwill, terrifies markets, and makes allies question whether you’re stable. Those are real costs that have been sacrificed and that you are ignoring. Yes, increased NATO presence is desirable. But there’s zero evidence this stunt achieved that, and plenty of evidence it damaged credibility. Do you think a single world leader went back to their country and thought "Wow, Trump is such a great leader!". No, zero, not one. Future policy will be written with that in mind.