The Issue: President-elect Donald Trump’s talk of acquiring Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal.
President-elect Donald Trump’s consideration of controlling the Panama Canal has profound strategic and significance implications (“How the West was Don,” Jan. 8).
The control of the Panama Canal is essential for the US Navy’s operations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Ownership of Greenland would be important in the freedom of navigation issues in the increasingly used Northwest Passage.
The United States needs both.
The Chinese have shown interest in the Panama Canal; Russia and China are both interested in the Northwest Passage.
Kevin Harrington
The Bronx
As a first-generation American, son of parents from Nova Scotia in eastern Canada, I must suggest to Trump about making Canada the 51st state: There are lots of reasons to have misgivings.
First and foremost, Anglophone Canadians are of a different culture.
Then there are the French speakers who don’t much care for “les maudits anglais” (the damned English).
If this is such a great idea, why didn’t we hear about this and related issues of the Panama Canal, Greenland and the Gulf of “America” during the campaign?
Andrew J. MacDonald
Fanwood, NJ
Canadian politicians out to counter Trump’s statehood proposition should suggest annexing California, Washington and Oregon.
Getting rid of West Coast liberal strongholds would make America great again.
Walter Goldeski
East Brunswick, NJ
If we fail to take total control of the Panama Canal, this miraculous passage from east to west will be a mere pit stop for the Chinese on their way to dominating the United States.
We can claim control of the canal through economic coercion alone.
I submit that this is the only path to unite East and West.
If we want a peaceful future for America, then we must have absolute dominion over the waterways upon which our ship of state travels.
Henry J.H. Wilson
Washington, DC
With regards to Greenland, acquisition should not be complicated: There are only 56,000 people there.
Simply offer them a million each to opt to be a US territory in a referendum and it’s a measly $56 billion.
Hell, offer them $2 million and a condo in Florida.
It’s still a solid bargain.
Walter Kitchenman
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
The Issue: Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to end Meta’s third-party fact checking policy.
Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta will be getting rid of its third-party fact-checking systems for Facebook and Instagram, and adopting a “community notes” style of content moderation (“Zuck dramatic about-face,” Jan. 8).
I think it would be the height of denialism for anyone to claim that free speech had not been actively and deliberately suppressed (and even punished) during the Biden-Harris administration.
Regardless of the “justification” (or rather the “rationalization”) of suppressing open discussions of “dissenting opinions” in the name of public health and order, doing so not only goes against the very foundations of democracy, it’s just plain wrong.
You can’t destroy democracy while trying to save it.
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita, Calif.
When Mark Zuckerberg announced his ending of fact-checking, he was wearing a Gruebel Forsey watch worth about $900,000.
It does look rather nice, but so does my house for similar money.
Doesn’t Facebook have a clock function on it, or is it no longer reliable, as no one is checking its accuracy?
Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia
Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
