2 ms·
Somebody is likely to take it at some point, for strategic military and resource purposes.
by WalterBright 1y ago
Somebody is likely to take it at some point, for strategic military and resource purposes.
- Symbiote 1y agoDenmark took it centuries ago, and that's how it should stay unless or until the Greenlandic people decide otherwise.
- WalterBright 1y agoThe regular incidence of war going on on our globe suggests that's not sustainable. Why do you think countries spend so much money on their militaries? Me, I'd love it if we could zero out the US defense budget. Unfortunately, that would be a disaster for us.
- spacechild1 1y agoWhat kind of argument is that!?
- WalterBright 1y agoWho controls what territory in the world is hardly stable. At some point, if one is not a military power, one will have to take sides. If, for example, valuable resources are discovered in Greenland.
- spacechild1 1y agoWhat are you talking about? Greenland is already a NATO member (via Denmark), so it has already taken a side. The obvious scandal, of course, is that Greenland is being openly threatened by the US - a fellow NATO member!
- WalterBright 1y ago> Greenland is being openly threatened by the US Not really. It's just bluster.
- spacechild1 1y agoDenmark/Greenland certainly thinks differently. And empty threats are still threats.
- WalterBright 1y agoThere's been no followup on the "threat".
- spacechild1 1y agoFirst, a threat stays a threat, even if you don't "follow up". Second, there are stories about alleged covert CIA operations. The topic is certainly not off the table. Don't you see any problem with the US expressing desires to annex parts of a fellow NATO member, let alone not ruling out military action?
- gessha 1y agoThe Henry Kissinger argument.