To address your question fairly, it is important to distinguish between the historical actions of the United States government, the rhetoric of specific political figures, and the social character of the American people themselves.

The situations you mentioned involving Panama, Greenland, and Canada each have very different historical and political contexts.

1. Panama: A History of Military Intervention

The U.S. has a long and complicated history with Panama.

1989 Invasion: Under President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. launched Operation Just Cause to depose dictator Manuel Noriega, who was indicted for drug trafficking.¹ While the operation was successful in removing Noriega and restoring a civilian government, it was widely criticized internationally as a violation of sovereignty and caused significant civilian casualties.²

The Canal: Control of the Panama Canal was the primary driver of U.S. interest for a century. However, sovereignty over the canal was fully transferred to Panama on December 31, 1999, following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.³

2. Greenland: Recent Strategic Interest

Talk of "acquiring" Greenland is a modern phenomenon largely tied to President Donald Trump.⁴

The "Purchase" Idea: In 2019, and again in more recent rhetoric during 2024–2025, Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland from Denmark, citing its mineral wealth and strategic Arctic location.⁵

The Reaction: This was rejected by both Denmark and Greenland's local government.⁶ International observers generally view these suggestions as unorthodox diplomacy or "political trolling" rather than a serious military threat.⁷

3. Canada: Rhetoric vs. Reality

There has never been a modern, credible threat of the U.S. invading Canada.

Historical Context: The last serious military conflict between the two was the War of 1812.⁸

Modern Rhetoric: While some fringe commentators or political figures occasionally joke about Canada becoming "the 51st state," the two countries share the world’s longest undefended border and one of the deepest economic and military partnerships (through NATO and NORAD) in history. Recent polling shows over 90% of Americans oppose any military action against Canada.

Summary Table: Threats vs. Actions

Are Americans "Lunatics"?

Characterizing an entire nation of 330 million people as a "lunatic race" is a broad generalization.

Public Opinion: Major polls (like the 2025 Chicago Council Survey) consistently show that the vast majority of Americans oppose territorial expansion and prioritize defending allies over conquering neighbors.⁹

Social Grace: While American politics can be loud and aggressive, the "social grace" of the population is usually defined by individual interactions—millions of Americans live, work, and travel abroad every year without conflict.

Political rhetoric, especially during election seasons, often uses hyperbole that does not reflect the actual desires or behavior of the general public.

Would you like me to look into the specific legal treaties that protect Panama's sovereignty or the current military cooperation between the U.S. and Canada?