Marjorie Taylor Greene Demands Congress 'Force' Gulf of Mexico Name Change as UK Refuses to Adopt New Name
www.latintimes.com
Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took to social media to demand that Congress use "force" in renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Summary

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is pushing legislation to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, arguing the U.S. military and taxpayers secure the region, making it “our gulf.”

Greene shared the proposal text on social media, calling for federal agencies to adopt the name change.

She linked the renaming effort to combatting Mexican cartel activity in the Gulf.

Trump supported the name change in a 2024 executive order, but there has been no indication of international adoption, including by the UK.

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    7 days ago
    1. Trade with the EU is still possible, it’s just much harder to do. Unless the PM is Truss levels of thick, he would make a deal with the EU.
    2. If the US tries to blockade the UK, that would be Article 5 worthy, hence, War with two nuclear powers.
    3. Even if we ignore that: Attacking shipping between the UK and the outside world would also include attacking friendly or neutral countries, including EU and NATO members, because the channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Hence, bad idea for America.
    4. The Channel Tunnel (the Chunnel) allows for freight trains to pass between the UK and mainland Europe.

    In short: If the US tries to blockade supplies between the UK and the rest of the world, be it by Sea or Air or Rail, the US would still be at war with NATO and the EU, as well as many other countries (the countries of the ships that are attacked for example) because the UK doesn’t merely have a lot of allies, but they also get a lot of shit from the same routes the UK does.

    • scratsearcher 🔍🔮📊🎲@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      You make good points in favor of the UK. Still from my viewpoint the US has some favorable cards and sits on a longer lever in the long term in the bilateral relation.

      1. Blockade could begin “soft” through tariffs and economic favors to other trading partners at first. Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, exports most of its goods to the United States, so the EU depends more on the relations to the US than the UK. Tightening that bottleneck to get concessions rather than cutting it off completely.
      2. And where would Britain get fuel from, 34% of UK fuel comes from the US according to oec trade balances? You need a lot of fuel reserves for a navy and air-force nowadays, not to mention to sustain a population. The U.S. is the biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world right now, and its growing into a petrol/oil-state.
      3. The US can offer France and Germany protection from China (because its military is capable and the best in the world) no tariffs and cheap fossil fuel to stay neutral. The US would need to split the EU and NATO into different factions infighting for this, which they already kinda did: Poland can not import the same level of chips as Germany from the US politico, while Orban supports Trump.