7 ms·

> You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? Bases as in

> You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right? Bases as in multiple? Didn't they shut down all but one? > was never a threat. It was an offer Is this a joke? The president has literally said they're not ruling out military force to annex Greenland, in what world isn't that a threat? Especially when said to a military partner no less. When the US purchased Lousiana from the French, did the bid also come with a "if you don't agree, we might take it by force" addendum?

chrisco255 1y ago
[flagged]
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > He said he wouldn't take "military action" off the table. Which doesn't mean invasion. You are imprinting that. ... based on the fact that the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns over the last decades and Trump having signed an EO to "rename" DoD to Department of War. It's not an unrealistic interpretation. > This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel. He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. > He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    > the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Renaming Department of Defense to Department of War is something like the opposite of doublespeak. It's more honest, isn't it? > He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. No. The entire Gaza situation erupted under Biden's presidency. As did the Ukraine invasion. The Biden presidency was completely powerless to stop any of this from occurring. Biden, the same guy that bumbled through sentences and lost track of topics in the presidential debate and was replaced by his own party's superdelegates in 2024 after he won the state primaries, had nothing to do with this. > What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is. There's 185 countries on planet earth. Many of them are run by literal kings and some of them are run by king-like figures. The U.S. absolutely isn't one of them, but when it comes to international politics, the duly elected President is the negotiator-in-chief. This follows in a long history of deal-making, going all the way back to President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase from France. Ironically, Denmark itself does have a king!
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      > The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Your internal implementation details are not pertinent when something is illegal in international law.
    - clan 1y ago
      What irony? The Danish king has zero power. Yes, he needs to sign the laws. Should he refuse, the next law he would see was his removal. We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed. Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home? I sadly see no irony. None at all. You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor. What you are arguing for is a litteral king. Call it what you want. You will soon enough find out how hard it is to get rid of cetralized power.
      - chrisco255 1y ago
        > The Danish king has zero power. Great, can you just get rid of the role now? What is the point in the role? Why give nobility and all this heritable nonsense even the slightest auspice? > We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed. > Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home? > I sadly see no irony. None at all. I don't know what to tell you. America kickstarted the whole monarchal upheaval movement in 1776 and we had to fight the world's largest empire for it with our own guns. It's unfortunate that the French did not have the same success in 1789. > You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor. No I'm not going to learn from the Germans, there's nothing to learn there. We have been doing democracy for 250 years, longer than anyone, our Presidents have generally been strong men, including General Washington himself. 32 of our 47 presidents have been ex-military. Some notable examples are General Ulysses S. Grant, General Eisenhower, Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Colonel Thomas Jefferson, Major General Andrew Jackson, Captain Abraham Lincoln, Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, etc etc. In that 250 year time frame, the U.S. conducted war, negotiated expansions of territory, settled conflicts, negotiated treaties, and defeated numerous empires. That could only happen because our Presidents were strong men with strong leadership. Our duly elected president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military and the Chief Diplomat. It has always been the case. U.S. Presidents are powerful. It has always been the case. However, U.S. citizens are also powerful. We have real freedom of speech, not some feckless version of it that europeans flirt with. We have guns to defend our human rights, including our lives, our liberty and our property. We have a robust legal system, 50 independent state governments with broad powers, a bill of rights that can't be overturned except by a large supermajority of states (75%), balances between branches of government, etc. We have a long deep cultural history of fighting for liberty, it will never be taken from us, you have to understand. We demand strong leaders, because we are strong people. But our leaders know they are in power for a short time. We have Constitutionally limited terms (can't be overturned except by 3/4 of state legislatures and 2/3 of Congress). We are never arguing for a king. We will never accept a king. But we will also never accept a weak President. Hope you can understand.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Regardless of exactly what "military action" is, it's a confrontational, aggressive and non-peaceful way of negotiating, you have to be able to at least agree with that right? And regardless of it meaning invasion or not, it's still a threat, not sure how you cannot see it as that.
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    [dead]
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > It might be confrontational, but that doesn't really matter does it? > Might Greenland be better off as a U.S. territory than as a Danish territory? Quite possibly! That there are Americans with this line of thinking just showcases how out of bounds the US have become. This isn't the way of thinking for a peaceful and cooperative world, this is the thinking of imperialism. I'm ashamed of sharing this same space with people with no respect or regards to sovereignty and actual humans living in places. I'm happy you can freely express it, and I'm happy people have different opinions and perspectives, but some perspectives are so fucked up I lose hope sometimes. I truly hope you can eventually see things from a less violent perspective, god speed.
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        [flagged]
        saubeidl 1y ago
        That Hitler fella and his talk of invading Czechoslovakia, big brain critical thinkers like you know how to separate words from actions!
        mlrtime 1y ago
        Godwin's law is dead.
- meijer 1y ago
  All this doesn't matter. The truth is: Europeans don't trust the US anymore (except maybe Hungary).
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      You forgot the current most realistic threat to Greenland: The US. Check your biases.
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        What threat exactly? Words?
        saubeidl 1y ago
        And actions. https://www.politico.eu/article/covert-operations-greenland-prompt-denmark-summon-top-us-envoy-donald-trump/ https://www.politico.eu/article/covert-operations-greenland-...
        mlrtime 1y ago
        "Danish broadcaster DR reported that at least three U.S. citizens linked to the U.S. government were involved in activities that, reportedly, authorities fear could be used covertly to support Trump’s desire to make Greenland part of the United States." I don't know where to start with this, there is so much space here you could drive a country through it. So citizens (not government officials) "linked", what does that mean? What activities exactly? "Fear could be" again, what does this mean, people are fearful, over what? People are afraid all the time. Is this it?
        saubeidl 1y ago
- phatfish 1y ago
  > He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. With the notable exception of dealing with Russia... See the recent threat to allow Ukraine use of Tomahawk missiles. Taken off the table after Putin made a hurried call, and now Putin has lost interest in negotiations, again. Trump has success "negotiating" with a regional terror group already almost bombed out of existence. He seems to blink first rather a lot when faced with an actual danger to the US.
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    He hasn't taken any option off the table with Russia. He's applying economic pressure by placing large tariffs on countries that trade openly with Russia, he's floating the Tomahawks to let Putin know we'll just keep beefing up Ukrainian weaponry, etc. I think he's hesitant to activate, say, B2 bombers like he did in Iran, but Russia remains a huge nuclear power so it obviously has to be treated differently, no one wants World War III.

chrisco255 1y ago

[flagged]

mschuster91 1y ago
> He said he wouldn't take "military action" off the table. Which doesn't mean invasion. You are imprinting that. ... based on the fact that the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns over the last decades and Trump having signed an EO to "rename" DoD to Department of War. It's not an unrealistic interpretation. > This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel. He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. > He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  > the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Renaming Department of Defense to Department of War is something like the opposite of doublespeak. It's more honest, isn't it? > He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump. No. The entire Gaza situation erupted under Biden's presidency. As did the Ukraine invasion. The Biden presidency was completely powerless to stop any of this from occurring. Biden, the same guy that bumbled through sentences and lost track of topics in the presidential debate and was replaced by his own party's superdelegates in 2024 after he won the state primaries, had nothing to do with this. > What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is. There's 185 countries on planet earth. Many of them are run by literal kings and some of them are run by king-like figures. The U.S. absolutely isn't one of them, but when it comes to international politics, the duly elected President is the negotiator-in-chief. This follows in a long history of deal-making, going all the way back to President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase from France. Ironically, Denmark itself does have a king!
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    > The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan. Your internal implementation details are not pertinent when something is illegal in international law.
  - clan 1y ago
    What irony? The Danish king has zero power. Yes, he needs to sign the laws. Should he refuse, the next law he would see was his removal. We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed. Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home? I sadly see no irony. None at all. You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor. What you are arguing for is a litteral king. Call it what you want. You will soon enough find out how hard it is to get rid of cetralized power.
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      > The Danish king has zero power. Great, can you just get rid of the role now? What is the point in the role? Why give nobility and all this heritable nonsense even the slightest auspice? > We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed. > Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home? > I sadly see no irony. None at all. I don't know what to tell you. America kickstarted the whole monarchal upheaval movement in 1776 and we had to fight the world's largest empire for it with our own guns. It's unfortunate that the French did not have the same success in 1789. > You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor. No I'm not going to learn from the Germans, there's nothing to learn there. We have been doing democracy for 250 years, longer than anyone, our Presidents have generally been strong men, including General Washington himself. 32 of our 47 presidents have been ex-military. Some notable examples are General Ulysses S. Grant, General Eisenhower, Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Colonel Thomas Jefferson, Major General Andrew Jackson, Captain Abraham Lincoln, Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, etc etc. In that 250 year time frame, the U.S. conducted war, negotiated expansions of territory, settled conflicts, negotiated treaties, and defeated numerous empires. That could only happen because our Presidents were strong men with strong leadership. Our duly elected president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military and the Chief Diplomat. It has always been the case. U.S. Presidents are powerful. It has always been the case. However, U.S. citizens are also powerful. We have real freedom of speech, not some feckless version of it that europeans flirt with. We have guns to defend our human rights, including our lives, our liberty and our property. We have a robust legal system, 50 independent state governments with broad powers, a bill of rights that can't be overturned except by a large supermajority of states (75%), balances between branches of government, etc. We have a long deep cultural history of fighting for liberty, it will never be taken from us, you have to understand. We demand strong leaders, because we are strong people. But our leaders know they are in power for a short time. We have Constitutionally limited terms (can't be overturned except by 3/4 of state legislatures and 2/3 of Congress). We are never arguing for a king. We will never accept a king. But we will also never accept a weak President. Hope you can understand.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Regardless of exactly what "military action" is, it's a confrontational, aggressive and non-peaceful way of negotiating, you have to be able to at least agree with that right? And regardless of it meaning invasion or not, it's still a threat, not sure how you cannot see it as that.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  [dead]
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    > It might be confrontational, but that doesn't really matter does it? > Might Greenland be better off as a U.S. territory than as a Danish territory? Quite possibly! That there are Americans with this line of thinking just showcases how out of bounds the US have become. This isn't the way of thinking for a peaceful and cooperative world, this is the thinking of imperialism. I'm ashamed of sharing this same space with people with no respect or regards to sovereignty and actual humans living in places. I'm happy you can freely express it, and I'm happy people have different opinions and perspectives, but some perspectives are so fucked up I lose hope sometimes. I truly hope you can eventually see things from a less violent perspective, god speed.
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        That Hitler fella and his talk of invading Czechoslovakia, big brain critical thinkers like you know how to separate words from actions!
        mlrtime 1y ago
        Godwin's law is dead.
meijer 1y ago
All this doesn't matter. The truth is: Europeans don't trust the US anymore (except maybe Hungary).
- chrisco255 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    You forgot the current most realistic threat to Greenland: The US. Check your biases.
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      What threat exactly? Words?
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        And actions. https://www.politico.eu/article/covert-operations-greenland-prompt-denmark-summon-top-us-envoy-donald-trump/ https://www.politico.eu/article/covert-operations-greenland-...
        mlrtime 1y ago
        "Danish broadcaster DR reported that at least three U.S. citizens linked to the U.S. government were involved in activities that, reportedly, authorities fear could be used covertly to support Trump’s desire to make Greenland part of the United States." I don't know where to start with this, there is so much space here you could drive a country through it. So citizens (not government officials) "linked", what does that mean? What activities exactly? "Fear could be" again, what does this mean, people are fearful, over what? People are afraid all the time. Is this it?
        saubeidl 1y ago
phatfish 1y ago
> He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position. With the notable exception of dealing with Russia... See the recent threat to allow Ukraine use of Tomahawk missiles. Taken off the table after Putin made a hurried call, and now Putin has lost interest in negotiations, again. Trump has success "negotiating" with a regional terror group already almost bombed out of existence. He seems to blink first rather a lot when faced with an actual danger to the US.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  He hasn't taken any option off the table with Russia. He's applying economic pressure by placing large tariffs on countries that trade openly with Russia, he's floating the Tomahawks to let Putin know we'll just keep beefing up Ukrainian weaponry, etc. I think he's hesitant to activate, say, B2 bombers like he did in Iran, but Russia remains a huge nuclear power so it obviously has to be treated differently, no one wants World War III.