5 ms·

I don't particularly care for your explanation, but if you do want to post these kind of comments at least explain yourself a bit so potentially a curious conve

I don't particularly care for your explanation, but if you do want to post these kind of comments at least explain yourself a bit so potentially a curious conversation can follow. Not doing so is arguably against this site's guidelines.

rpiguy 8mo ago
Can you please leave this comment on all the posts that state “we need to protest” or “look at the mad king” I don’t see any explanation or opportunity for curious conversation. Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas. I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years. It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in. We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.
- throwaway89201 8mo ago
  > Why did you single mine out? Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases. I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me. > it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere. Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
- ben_w 8mo ago
  > I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you. China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.
  - rpiguy 8mo ago
    The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become. Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much. Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived. Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue. All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door. Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade. Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have. There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      > NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?

rpiguy 8mo ago

Can you please leave this comment on all the posts that state “we need to protest” or “look at the mad king” I don’t see any explanation or opportunity for curious conversation. Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas. I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years. It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in. We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.

throwaway89201 8mo ago
> Why did you single mine out? Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases. I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me. > it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere. Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
ben_w 8mo ago
> I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you. China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.
- rpiguy 8mo ago
  The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become. Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much. Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived. Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue. All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door. Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade. Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have. There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    > NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions. At best, you still lose all your allies. At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four. > Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more. The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly. Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from. > All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate. And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku? There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump. > The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation. 1. And you think the US is unified right now? 2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate? > Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? No. I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me. How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?