- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
The propaganda is ramping up. I’m getting the same vibes as the pre-Iraq war, when the Bush admin went on the propaganda offense to explain why it was vital that we conduct a war there.
I wonder if we’ll get another helping of “freedom fries” this time around. I’m sure I’ll be told I’m a libtard and not patriotic if I don’t support some kind annexation.
How soon before conservatives start parroting the talking about points that Greenland is so vital to our security.
Thank god someone is finally doing something about Greenland /s
NO MALARKEY
-
Please explain. Unlike the Obama and Obama2/Biden administrations, Trump is relatively anti-war, he campaigned as such, he criticized Biden’s astoundingly incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan and Biden’s lying about the loss of American lives afterward, and he’s obviously attempting to wind down Ukraine with as little bloodshed as possible. Why would Trump pretext a war against Greenland and its 57,000 people, especially with a U. S. military base (Thule Air Base) already there since the end of WWII? It’d be cheaper just to buy it. Give every inhabitant $1 mms., that’s just $57 billion, or 11 days’ worth of Biden’s Federal deficit.
And you’re implying that wanting to acquire Greenland is so bizarre. It’s a bipartisan desire. In 1867, Democrat President Andrew Johnson thought about trying to buy Greenland, so did Republican President Taft in 1910. Democrat Harry Truman offered $100 million to the Danes for it back in 1946. They offered to write off Denmark’s $70 million war debt in exchange for Greenland.
Here’s a piece written by a prof at a semi-reputable university on the topic. Maybe you’ve heard of the school: Buying Greenland Isn’t a New Idea | Stanford Department of History
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
And you’re implying that wanting to acquire Greenland is so bizarre
Mick, the fact that you’re even pretending this is all perfectly normal is mind blowing. I mean WTF? I don’t even know if this warrants much of a response.
Trump says U.S. will ‘get Greenland,’ military force may not be needed but not ruled out
Do I really need to explain why this is fucking bonkers?
NO MALARKEY
-
-
-
-
-
“Alright, folks, we got four identical posts on the board, FOUR identical posts, count ‘em—one, two, three, four! But why stop there? Do I hear FIVE? That’s right, five identical posts! Who’s got the energy? Who’s got the dedication? Who’s got that commitment to redundancy? Going once, going twice—come on now, don’t let repetition fatigue stop you—FIVE identical posts, SOLD to the loudest voice in the room!”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
And you’re implying that wanting to acquire Greenland is so bizarre
Mick, the fact that you’re even pretending this is all perfectly normal is mind blowing. I mean WTF? I don’t even know if this warrants much of a response.
It’s out of the box, for sure. Access to Greenland would be helpful from a variety of angles. Four different American presidents since Democrat Andrew Johnson have expressed an interest in it, and given the Russian and Chinese interest in Arctic defense installations, coupled with unexplored mineral rights, it doesn’t seem so bizarre.
We’re obviously not going to mount a military adventure to seize Greenland. But buying it for literally 11 days’ worth of additional debt? Works for me. Nice to have a President who thinks about interesting options.
By the way, you never answered why wanting to acquire Greenland is bizarre. Why is wanting to add to the United States a bizarre interest?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
First, I posted that four times because the platform glitched. My browser just hung when I tried to submit. I waited a minute and checked the website from a different device and it wasn’t showing up. So I tried posting again…. Rinse and repeat a few times. Don’t blame me. This isn’t the first time it’s happened here. https://currenteventsboard.com/forums/topic/test/
I don’t know if my account gets flagged for moderation or if the backend infrastructure supporting this site has issues.
Second, buying Greenland is perfectly fine. Sounds great, for the right price. And if they agree to it. But threatening a NATO ally and a friendly country is insane. Do you not understand that is what Trump is doing when he says he’s not ruling out military force? Even if it’s just a negotiation tactic, that is completely beyond the pale. That is not how you treat friendly countries, allies, partners.
I have to believe that there’s some part of you that understands how batshit insane this is. How corrosive it is. How fucked our economy would be if we actually initiated a hostile action against our closest allies. And I don’t just mean Greenland and Denmark. I mean the alliance of democratic nations who would turn on us economically (they already have over the idiotic tariffs, but it would ramp up exponentially).
I mean who the fuck behaves like this besides Russia? Do you go to your friends house and say, “that’s a nice piece of property. I’d like to buy it from you because my family needs it more than you. And if you don’t sell it to me, I’m not ruling out arson or some other malicious tactics.”
Even if we don’t use force, just saying shit like that is historically insane.
NO MALARKEY
-
You mean like Democratic president Truman threatening the Dutch in 1949?
Denmark is a founding member of NATO, signatory to the original charter, mandating that the participants participate equally by spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. Want to know the last time Denmark hit that 2% benchmark? It’s been two generations. Want to know the lowest percentage of American GDP allocated to the military in the last sixty years? 3.09% in 1999. Our “allies” have let us spend our hard-earned wealth at a far higher percentage than they have for literally generations. Who bailed out Europe twice last century? Americans. And Trump is tired of it, particularly as we have such a huge deficit.
We’re tired of being the world’s policeman and the world’s last refuge of residency. Was he clumsy? Yes but he wasn’t the first president to threaten an ally or express an interest in acquiring Greenland.
Not only is Trump not hostile, but the Danish leader has indicated an interest in driving a closer relationship with America.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
-
I don’t like the rhetoric nor the bluster and implied threats. But . . .
with arctic seas becoming more ice-free, important to have the right presence in those geographies. Great that we have Alaska, yet even that huge state may be insufficient. It remains a long-term geopolitical imperative for the US to ensure we have strong allies, bases, and the right presence “up there”. Acquisition of Greenland is one option, and hope hope this and other administrations are working with multiple governments on this.
-
@cardcrimson: please re-read my last comment. There’s nothing ludicrous about acquiring Greenland. Sounds great. Let’s negotiate. If the price is reasonable and if they are agreeable to it, then let’s do it. The point both you and Mick completely missed or ignored: you don’t threaten friendly, peaceful, democratic allies as a negotiation tactic.
Going back to WW2, we historically had as many as 47 military bases on Greenland, depending on how you count. With one or two exceptions, we gradually shut them all down and withdrew for various reasons. Some were unnecessary due to technology advances, priorities changed, etc. But we were not forced out; we weren’t expelled. And if we want more military bases there, Greenland would almost certainly come to some reasonable arrangement. We do not need to threaten them. Do you not see how imperialistic and insane that is?
Regarding Mick’s point about failing to meet the 2% defense budget, I agree. I’ve argued on other platforms (and maybe here) that Trump happens to be right about that — and Europe needs to increase their spending. However, that is not an excuse to threaten annexation of their territory by force. You want to give them a deadline? Fine. Tell them we will withdraw from NATO if they don’t meet these obligations by such and such date. How about 2027? But you don’t just start threatening military aggression. I mean WTF. How do you guys not understand this? Or if you do, maybe you can agree that it’s fucked up.
@Mick: two other points about the 2% thing:First some history and context about that number: The 2% of GDP defense spending target for NATO members is not a legal requirement but a political guideline introduced in 2006 to encourage adequate military investment. It gained prominence after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, when NATO leaders at a Wales Summit agreed to aim for 2% within a decade. At the time it was framed as an aspirational goal rather than a binding obligation. In 2023, at the Vilnius Summit, NATO updated the language to call the 2% a “minimum” spending level, but still without enforcement mechanisms. Spending has indeed increased significantly in recent years — though most NATO countries have still fallen short of the target. As much as I agree they should increase their defense, NATO membership does not require countries to meet the 2% threshold, and failing to do so does not violate any treaty obligations.
Second: when it comes to the recent conflict in Ukraine, Europe collectively has spent significantly more than the USA in the last few years. You want to criticize them about budget obligations? Fine. But they are stepping up more than the US financially now.
Of course, the rationale for abandoning Ukraine and Europe is not actually about this 2% budget thing. That is just a red herring. If it were an actual imperative, Trump and the people in his administration would not be supporting the party in Germany which advocates for less defense spending. They would not aim their most vocal criticism at Poland, which spends more than double the 2% and more than the US, as a percentage, on defense.
NO MALARKEY
-
NATO has been tracking defense expenditures as a percentage of GDP since its inception. Here’s a link from 1963 tracking those expenditures since 1949.
The resolution by the NATO defense ministers in 2006 to commit to a 2.0% threshold of GDP was intended to be binding. It was renewed when Russia stole Croatia in 2014. Here’s the expenditure ratios in 2021. Note how few meet the threshold. Why? Because the USA always, ALWAYS pays, in blood and treasure:
I always admire a good cherry-picked stat, really I do, but your cherry-picking of the NATO-countries-paying-more-than-the-USA really takes the cake. Yes, those countries, on the geographic threshold of Russia realize that if Ukraine wasn’t supported in defense, many of them would be next. Oh, and BTW….the USA provides 70% of the collective defense. The Euros fund Ukraine because we protect them. We’re
$31T, $32%, $33T, $34T, $35T,$36.665 trillion in debt.The neocons aren’t in charge anymore, the Obama/Biden war machine isn’t in charge anymore. Trump signaled it in his first term, war-as-a-business is not his priority. Defense, sure. But the Euros really should be fighting their own battles, four generations after the close of WWII and two generations since the Berlin wall fell.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.