4 ms·

The US was allowed to do businesses deals in Greenland, American billionaires have bought companies to do exactly that there, it was never an issue and the Dani

by piva00 9mo ago

The US was allowed to do businesses deals in Greenland, American billionaires have bought companies to do exactly that there, it was never an issue and the Danish and Greenland governments were always open for that. I don't understand how you can defend this, a supposedly smart person on Hacker News is advocating for the invasion of an allied nation. It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here.

mdhb 9mo ago
His entire account is dedicated to saying outlandish shit like this. There’s no position he won’t defend. Just downvote and move on.
SauciestGNU 9mo ago
I don't understand how any immigrant, let alone someone visibly darker skinned than the average European, could be in favor of this imperial expansion and domestic repression. Bro will be next on the boxcars spouting off about "it might be genocide but at least it's not woke".
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 9mo ago
[flagged]
- piva00 9mo ago
  Denmark is a founding member of NATO, deployed troops to Afghanistan when the US was attacked on 9/11 and lost 40+ soldiers. Denmark has spilled blood for the US. It's an ally as much as it could be, the US's presence in Greenland is entirely because it is in US's interests, and for that, as an ally, Denmark has always allowed the US to deploy as many troops as it wanted. Also as an ally it allowed Americans to do business in Greenland. What else do you want? You aren't even American for the Trump administration, do not understand how you got so entangled in this bizarre worldview.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 9mo ago
      How are you unsure? You don't think the USA benefitted from the world order it set after WW2, with NATO, setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? What else do you want? More? It's fucking bonkers that's even an argument to be had, it seems it's never enough for the empire. The US's expenditure on its military was never to protect anyone from the Soviets but to impose its own world order against the Soviets, it's been always self-serving and for someone so educated it's a bit ignorant to not understand that. > And what does my background have it do with my point? What Trump thinks of me has nothing to do with my analysis of any particular policy It has to do with you aligning with the agenda, repeating the rhetoric about US's allies as not being worthy even though it built the USA as it exists today in 2026. The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today but given how you look [0] you'll also be considered not worthy when it's convenient by the agenda of the same administration you're aligning with to betray allies. Good luck thinking the USA as it exists can do so without allies, it's a shame that "when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor". [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/
      - rayiner 9mo ago
        > setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before either world war, coming out of a long period of economic isolation. US GDP per capita growth has been about 2% per year continuously since 1830: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... It wasn’t notably higher after World War II than before World War I. > The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before mass immigration from countries like mine.
- a_ba 9mo ago
  What kind of ridiculous stupidity is it to endanger the greatest military alliance in history? You give up the credible deterrent that all member states enjoy and contribute for what exactly? A bunch of minerals you could have had with a simple treaty? Military access that you already enjoyed? China and Russia must be laughing hard at this amateur shit show
  - ModernMech 9mo ago
    Specifically in this case Trump's stated rationale is to shove Denmark's face in it for not forcing the Nobel prize committee to give him a peace prize. I don't think minerals or national security factor into it.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      And yet, nobody lifts a finger.
- phs318u 9mo ago
  The kind of far-sighted deal in which the US gets effective use of its allies territories to project military force far beyond its border, in order to contain its superpower rivals, the Russian Federation and China. This is done primarily to protect the USA's own interests (military and commercial), and secondarily (and as a quid-pro-quo) to defend the territory of its allies. That's what military alliances are about. You may recall the Iraq war when several allies of the US joined your country in fighting the Ba'athists, and then in the aftermath - when a multi-national peace keeping force was assembled (notably, including Denmark and Norway). Right or wrong, the US called, and allies responded. Of course, if the USA no longer wants those bases all around the world, the US government is entirely free to withdraw them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants_of_the_Iraq_War
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - phs318u 9mo ago
      You're thinking too narrowly. It's not just about mutual trade. It's the fact that US companies have firmly planted the flag almost everywhere on earth - a feat only possible through the Pax Americana. If you want to see what the world will look like for the USA when it can rely on no allies to support its military misadventures, when it can rely on no favourable treatment from allies for its corporations, when it sees its former allies forming deals with former enemies, and when the cost of losing the US dollar's primacy as the reserve currency for world trade hits your country in its ability to raise (and service) debt - just wait. That world is slowly coming.
      - rayiner 9mo ago
        U.S. companies planted a flag all over the world for the same reason Chinese companies have done so. In 1930 the U.S. was the manufacturing giant that China is today. I suspect the military misadventures will have to end, but that’s a good thing. In terms of reserve currency and trade deals or whatnot—I’m not persuaded it matters for economic growth. Can you point out on this chart of U.S. GDP per capita at which point we began enjoying the economic benefits of being the reserve currency? https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peth_09-72016.jpg?x97961 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peth_09-72016....
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  You may want to say that to the faces of the families who lost people in the Iraq war. This is disgusting. I'm beginning to believe that there is no line that you won't cross to defend your idol.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    What does that have to do with anything? Is allyship determined by intent or objective factors?
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      The latter, exactly. And you are clearly ignoring the objective factors. Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.
nec4b 9mo ago
>> It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here. I don't agree with rayiner's opinion, but it's a completely rational point of view. Every empire thinks like that. Which part of it is so flabbergasting that is has no precedent many times over in our human history?

by piva00 9mo ago

mdhb 9mo ago

His entire account is dedicated to saying outlandish shit like this. There’s no position he won’t defend. Just downvote and move on.

SauciestGNU 9mo ago

I don't understand how any immigrant, let alone someone visibly darker skinned than the average European, could be in favor of this imperial expansion and domestic repression. Bro will be next on the boxcars spouting off about "it might be genocide but at least it's not woke".

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

rayiner 9mo ago

[flagged]

piva00 9mo ago
Denmark is a founding member of NATO, deployed troops to Afghanistan when the US was attacked on 9/11 and lost 40+ soldiers. Denmark has spilled blood for the US. It's an ally as much as it could be, the US's presence in Greenland is entirely because it is in US's interests, and for that, as an ally, Denmark has always allowed the US to deploy as many troops as it wanted. Also as an ally it allowed Americans to do business in Greenland. What else do you want? You aren't even American for the Trump administration, do not understand how you got so entangled in this bizarre worldview.
- rayiner 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 9mo ago
    How are you unsure? You don't think the USA benefitted from the world order it set after WW2, with NATO, setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? What else do you want? More? It's fucking bonkers that's even an argument to be had, it seems it's never enough for the empire. The US's expenditure on its military was never to protect anyone from the Soviets but to impose its own world order against the Soviets, it's been always self-serving and for someone so educated it's a bit ignorant to not understand that. > And what does my background have it do with my point? What Trump thinks of me has nothing to do with my analysis of any particular policy It has to do with you aligning with the agenda, repeating the rhetoric about US's allies as not being worthy even though it built the USA as it exists today in 2026. The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today but given how you look [0] you'll also be considered not worthy when it's convenient by the agenda of the same administration you're aligning with to betray allies. Good luck thinking the USA as it exists can do so without allies, it's a shame that "when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor". [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayiner-hashem-3481b58/
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      > setting up a global system of economical hegemony and become the wealthiest nation on the history of mankind? The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before either world war, coming out of a long period of economic isolation. US GDP per capita growth has been about 2% per year continuously since 1830: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... It wasn’t notably higher after World War II than before World War I. > The same applies to your background, it helped to build the USA as it exists today The U.S. was already the richest country in the world before mass immigration from countries like mine.
a_ba 9mo ago
What kind of ridiculous stupidity is it to endanger the greatest military alliance in history? You give up the credible deterrent that all member states enjoy and contribute for what exactly? A bunch of minerals you could have had with a simple treaty? Military access that you already enjoyed? China and Russia must be laughing hard at this amateur shit show
- ModernMech 9mo ago
  Specifically in this case Trump's stated rationale is to shove Denmark's face in it for not forcing the Nobel prize committee to give him a peace prize. I don't think minerals or national security factor into it.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    And yet, nobody lifts a finger.
phs318u 9mo ago
The kind of far-sighted deal in which the US gets effective use of its allies territories to project military force far beyond its border, in order to contain its superpower rivals, the Russian Federation and China. This is done primarily to protect the USA's own interests (military and commercial), and secondarily (and as a quid-pro-quo) to defend the territory of its allies. That's what military alliances are about. You may recall the Iraq war when several allies of the US joined your country in fighting the Ba'athists, and then in the aftermath - when a multi-national peace keeping force was assembled (notably, including Denmark and Norway). Right or wrong, the US called, and allies responded. Of course, if the USA no longer wants those bases all around the world, the US government is entirely free to withdraw them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants_of_the_Iraq_War
- rayiner 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - phs318u 9mo ago
    You're thinking too narrowly. It's not just about mutual trade. It's the fact that US companies have firmly planted the flag almost everywhere on earth - a feat only possible through the Pax Americana. If you want to see what the world will look like for the USA when it can rely on no allies to support its military misadventures, when it can rely on no favourable treatment from allies for its corporations, when it sees its former allies forming deals with former enemies, and when the cost of losing the US dollar's primacy as the reserve currency for world trade hits your country in its ability to raise (and service) debt - just wait. That world is slowly coming.
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      U.S. companies planted a flag all over the world for the same reason Chinese companies have done so. In 1930 the U.S. was the manufacturing giant that China is today. I suspect the military misadventures will have to end, but that’s a good thing. In terms of reserve currency and trade deals or whatnot—I’m not persuaded it matters for economic growth. Can you point out on this chart of U.S. GDP per capita at which point we began enjoying the economic benefits of being the reserve currency? https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peth_09-72016.jpg?x97961 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peth_09-72016....
jacquesm 9mo ago
You may want to say that to the faces of the families who lost people in the Iraq war. This is disgusting. I'm beginning to believe that there is no line that you won't cross to defend your idol.
- rayiner 9mo ago
  What does that have to do with anything? Is allyship determined by intent or objective factors?
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    The latter, exactly. And you are clearly ignoring the objective factors. Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.

nec4b 9mo ago

>> It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here. I don't agree with rayiner's opinion, but it's a completely rational point of view. Every empire thinks like that. Which part of it is so flabbergasting that is has no precedent many times over in our human history?