- 1,146
- 1,573
What really bothers me is that, seemingly, the entire rest of the world acts as Neville Chamberlain did in Munich 1938, appeasing when strength is required. The outcome of 1938 can be found in history books.
US aggression of Greenland
- Context: Defense
- Thread starter EricDMMiller
- Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The forum discussion centers on the escalating tensions between the United States and its former allies regarding Greenland, with the White House indicating military options are on the table. Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark, has warned that this could signal the end of NATO, while various European leaders emphasize the importance of Arctic security. The conversation also touches on the implications of U.S. military actions on global stability, particularly concerning China and Russia. Participants express concerns about the potential for violence and the need for diplomatic solutions.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of NATO's role in international security
- Familiarity with U.S. foreign policy and military strategy
- Knowledge of Arctic geopolitics and territorial integrity
- Awareness of historical context regarding U.S. military interventions
- Research the implications of the 1951 Defence Agreement between Denmark and the United States
- Examine the current state of NATO's military presence in the Arctic region
- Investigate the geopolitical consequences of U.S. military actions in Greenland
- Explore the historical context of U.S. foreign policy decisions in relation to NATO
Political analysts, international relations scholars, military strategists, and anyone interested in the future of NATO and Arctic security.
What really bothers me is that, seemingly, the entire rest of the world acts as Neville Chamberlain did in Munich 1938, appeasing when strength is required. The outcome of 1938 can be found in history books.
- 108
- 79
I'm clinging to the faint hope that within a week or two the Supreme Court, despite being stacked with Trump supporters, will find the tariffs blatantly unconstitutional (as they obviously are).
- Thread starter
- #33
- 303
- 219
It will soon come time for the rest of the world to fight a total war of annihilation against the United States of America.
- Admin
- #34
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 480
- 309
Rep. Don Bacon says House could impeach Trump if U.S. invades Greenland
Rep. Don Bacon tells The World-Herald that there would be GOP support for an impeachment of Donald Trump if the U.S. invaded Greenland.
- Admin
- #35
Borg
Site Admin
- 250
- 259
And then there would be the Senate where it failed twice before. 
- 1,146
- 1,573
And then there would be the Senate where it failed twice before.
You cannot fight him with the usual methods. He would simply ignore it. You have to "go to the mattresses" if you really want to hurt him:
a) Rename 5th Avenue in NYC into Obama Avenue.
b) File a complaint with the ICC regarding crimes against humanity.
c) Release the Epstein files, uncensored.
d) Demand an independent health certificate. (There is no regular way he will pass.)
e) Take away the Olympics and the Football World Championship because the USA is too risky for foreign fans.
Some of them were easy, some a bit more difficult, but all are doable.
If SCOTUS finds against the administration, the Bloomberg TV pundits are of the opinion that the administration will re-instate the tariffs with a different legal justification and let that take a year to again find its way to SCOTUS, rinse and repeat until Trump is no longer in power. I've heard speculation on Bloomberg that there are 2 or 3 more laws that could be claimed to justify tariffs - worse fits than the current claim, but requiring due process to fight nonetheless. The only way to potentially short-circuit this would be for congress to pass a law making explicit what tariffs are legal under what conditions.
SCOTUS-following pundits I've heard are all expecting SCOTUS to find the tariff justification improper, which is what the case is about - unfortunately the case is not about constitutionality of the tariffs per se, just about the legal justification for declaring a state of emergency and the scope of the tariffs related to a declared state of emergency.
All of the above is my understanding of listening to legal and business analysis from more-or-less centrist reporting media channels - at the end of the day, who knows if any critical-thinking analysis can possibly be predictive with this administration.
a - That would be awesome
b - An interesting thought - I wonder if he'd be found guilty and if so, whether he'd curtail travel or just dare someone to arrest him. I'm sure some would take him up on the dare.
c - IMO, if there were anything here, we'd have seen it. The Biden administration had 4 years to look for a poison pill - I doubt there is one.
d - Such demands were made repeatedly in the 2016 cycle. He said 'sure, I've nothing to hide, I'll get around to it' IIRC. Of course he never got around to it. There is no way he'd actually comply, IMO.
e - This is a very interesting thought. It would really sting him.
I guess it's the age old argument of whether 'might is right' vs 'right is might'.
Many a war has been fought to prove one or the other.
Many an issue has been debated to prove one or the other.
Whether there is an absolute is really difficult to say.
The world is intensively hypocritical.
I normally fall under the 'right is might' side of the line, as do most people of the day wishing to defend the oppressed.
- 1,146
- 1,573
The point is, and several sports metaphors immediately come to mind, perhaps because I'm watching the Bears game right now, that we have to take control. We have to put him on the defensive, justifiably or not. Up until now, he's been the only one acting, inventing one outrageous thing after another. That has to change. He loves talking about himself so much. Just do it!
Some history on USA thoughts on Greenland acquisition since late 1800's, or since right after the USA purchase of Alaska from Russia on 1867. It is not a new thing at all, and could have happened in 1910, by a complicated land swap initiated by Denmark.
www.history.com
Some comparison with Hawaii becoming the 50th state., 1959, with initiatives developing from 1887, when the Hawaiian Monarchy was 'diplomatically' undercut, and 1893 overthrown by locals.
www.history.com
For both, one an actual acquisition, the other in progress, and include Alaska a third due to its timetable, a glaring bare fact is that the Indigenous peoples, as well as some other locals ( or are the inhabitants of Greenland all Norsemen ), had/have no say in their own destiny, or that is the feeling as other nation leaders discuss Greenland fate., and project their importance as being above that of the Greenland people's wishes.
A few differences is that Hawaii had a local economic link to the USA, Alaska's cold and barren place's economic link and mainland acceptance followed the Gold Rush.
Greenland has no economic link to the USA, other than through the military base. Import of Canadian products to the Greenland at a low 1.6% ( approx 20 million $ ) overshadows USA's as nothing registered, even though it has the military base. Economic link is mainly with its European neighbors.
I see 3 reasons the present admin fascination with Greenland:
- militarily strategic, but USA already has a base, although thus no say on territorial waters, or airspace.
- economic importance, but presently lacking any
- completion of the triad of land acquisition that started in late 1800's. Alaska, Hawaii, and Greenland.
Trump, having not said it, would take credit for the third reason, completion of what others did not accomplish.
Ego satisfaction, and in your face to past presidents.
America's Long History of Trying to Acquire Greenland | HISTORY
In 1868, a U.S. Secretary of State promoted Greenland as a land that could empower the United States to 'command the ...
Some comparison with Hawaii becoming the 50th state., 1959, with initiatives developing from 1887, when the Hawaiian Monarchy was 'diplomatically' undercut, and 1893 overthrown by locals.
Hawaii’s Long Road to Becoming America’s 50th State | HISTORY
Hawaii became part of the union more than six decades after an illegal coup ousted the Native Hawaiian monarchy.
For both, one an actual acquisition, the other in progress, and include Alaska a third due to its timetable, a glaring bare fact is that the Indigenous peoples, as well as some other locals ( or are the inhabitants of Greenland all Norsemen ), had/have no say in their own destiny, or that is the feeling as other nation leaders discuss Greenland fate., and project their importance as being above that of the Greenland people's wishes.
A few differences is that Hawaii had a local economic link to the USA, Alaska's cold and barren place's economic link and mainland acceptance followed the Gold Rush.
Greenland has no economic link to the USA, other than through the military base. Import of Canadian products to the Greenland at a low 1.6% ( approx 20 million $ ) overshadows USA's as nothing registered, even though it has the military base. Economic link is mainly with its European neighbors.
I see 3 reasons the present admin fascination with Greenland:
- militarily strategic, but USA already has a base, although thus no say on territorial waters, or airspace.
- economic importance, but presently lacking any
- completion of the triad of land acquisition that started in late 1800's. Alaska, Hawaii, and Greenland.
Trump, having not said it, would take credit for the third reason, completion of what others did not accomplish.
Ego satisfaction, and in your face to past presidents.
- Thread starter
- #42
- 303
- 219
Look at the rhetoric deployed by this barely human sack of shit.
- 1,146
- 1,573
I wouldn't be surprised at all if that entire Greenland idea has been suggested by Putin during a phone call. It matches Putin's imperialistic way of thinking, pleases Trump's pathological ego, and is a comparably cheap and easy opportunity to separate the US from all of its other NATO allies, and Trump is foolish enough not to notice. Furthermore, it represents a pseudo-justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's entitlement to Taiwan.
And, last but not least, it is a great distraction from all the problems at home: ICE, Epstein, National Guard, and whatever is in the news. As long as people talk about Greenland, as long anybody will bother the direct problems.
And, last but not least, it is a great distraction from all the problems at home: ICE, Epstein, National Guard, and whatever is in the news. As long as people talk about Greenland, as long anybody will bother the direct problems.
- 1,146
- 1,573
I remember a remark of an elderly colleague back in 1998 during a Euro / Y2K project, who said: "One drinks himself to death (Yeltsin), another eats himself to death (Kohl), and a third sticks his <whatever is suited here, the original German term was clapper> everywhere (Clinton). What a world we live in."
I wonder what he would say now!
I just thought:
If I were American and did what Trump is doing right now, I would very likely be taken to court for treason.
I wonder what he would say now!
I just thought:
If I were American and did what Trump is doing right now, I would very likely be taken to court for treason.
Last edited:
You're assuming Garland had the will to follow through with an investigation despite the risk of appearing politically motivated. This is the same guy who refused to look into Trump's involvement with the insurrection because he didn't want to appear political until the January 6th committee released its findings and embarrassed his DOJ.
If there's one thing we learned in the past ten years is that we can't count on any of our leaders to save us.
I think his motivation may be even more stupid than that. Trump probably thinks he'll be added to Mount Rushmore because he expanded US territory by adding Greenland.
This is my thinking as well.
On a separate note -
One thing all American's should be taking away from this is a hard look in the mirror. 'Manifest Destiny' doctrine is ugly up close and its how the US was built. I don't see much ethical difference between what Trump is contemplating and the Gadsden Purchase or the Louisiana Purchase; both were annexing territory populated by indigenous people and acquired by paying / strong-arming other colonizers to relinquish claim.
I see your point, and its valid.
I wasn't thinking about a DoJ investigation, though. I am recalling the first Hilary / Trump debate where she clearly had obtained access to his tax records and outed him for not paying any taxes, thinking this would harm him politically. If there were dirt here, I think it would have been leaked by Harris.
- Thread starter
- #48
- 303
- 219
US Arctic airborne troops have been placed on standby.
www.thedefensenews.com
Pentagon Places 1,500 Arctic-Trained Airborne Troops on Standby as Greenland Dispute Escalates
ANCHORAGE WASHINGTON The Pentagon has issued prepare-to-deploy orders to roughly 1 500 active-duty soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division setting off a wave of debate
- Admin
- #49
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 480
- 309
Is this real?
I think so. It seems less shocking when one learns that he said the same thing a year ago as well - I guess it’s his style.
Seems to be the only one across the pond who speaks the language.
Europe is officially done pretending this is normal diplomacy.
That's a crock - the others still want to play nice, not offend too, too much, just hoping for favour and an invite to the WH.
Last edited:
- 129
- 117
How is the following not making more reactions from within the USA?
Especially knowing that:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/buying-greenland-cost-much-700-billion-rcna253921 said:
I don't feel that Trump supporters elected him to spend more money, especially to get more involved outside the USA. I can understand how ICE (which gets rid of the "criminals") or the tariffs (which should "create" US jobs) have support from MAGA, but not Venezuela, Greenland, or any other outside USA activities. Nevermind Europe, why aren't there more outraged people in the USA?
- Thread starter
- #53
- 303
- 219
Greenland PM tells people to prepare for possible invasion
Greenland's PM said a U.S. invasion 'can't be ruled out' and called on the country to prepare in case Donald Trump acts on threats. Read on.
financialpost.com
IMO -
The deficit is a cudgel to beat the opposition with or an excuse to be an impediment to opposition initiatives.
I discuss politics quite a bit with my friends, they are relatively more plugged in than the average American, and any time I bring up the deficit that topic always falls flat. No one I've spoken to has any kind of concrete idea about why deficits are potentially bad or even the most basic things about its mechanics.
Most Americans, by a long shot, my guess is upwards of 90%, do not know that "increasing the deficit" and "selling bonds" are synonymous, for example. They have a vague idea that the US borrows money in a way that is not visible to them, by calling up banks or some obscure mechanism. They don't understand that bonds are the debt, and the more debt, the less valuable bonds tend to be, and that there is, somewhere out there, a cliff.
Edit: They also don't understand that bonds fund their pensions, their IRA / 401k investments and etc. I spoke recently with a family member who said only rich people can afford to own bonds, I myself (the person I was talking to) have an annuity, so bond prices are not relevant to me (meaning the person I was talking to). This person was quite well educated - but woefully ignorant of some basic economic mechanisms.
I am personally very concerned about the deficit, and I look for others who share my concern, and its very very hard for me to find anyone.
- 129
- 117
I am too. But even if it was paid in full, I was under the impression that Republicans and Donald Trump were elected to make the average American richer, mostly by creating jobs and investment opportunities within the country, and lowering taxes. I fail to see how spending money outside the USA accomplishes that (for the average American, that is).
Ah - I was distracted by 'deficit'. Yes, if you look at it from a domestic vs foreign priority, Trump is taking criticism for not focusing on the economic issues facing the average American. This is a big criticism of his Greenland focus and the Venezuela actions. There is speculation that this is going to drive mid-term results.
- 251
- 204
The EU countries own up to $10T in US Treasuries. Much of that is in pension funds.
I saw that Denmark has sold $100M of its Treasuries.
How does this affect the way each reacts to the other's moves?
I saw that Denmark has sold $100M of its Treasuries.
How does this affect the way each reacts to the other's moves?
Its interesting speculation - my speculation follows.
I just Googled, and the daily trade volume of US bonds is 900B to 1T dollars in recent times. I would think any effects would be political and not economic in motivation. What I mean is, if an EU country decides to sell bonds, they are signalling to their population, not thinking that they need to make a market-driven reaction to Denmark selling.
Personally I'd be surprised if bond-dumping is going to become a centerpiece of EU resistance, it has an aspect of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face if one deliberately attempts to tank the value of an asset held as a foreign reserve. Presumably when these purchases were made they were not made with potential economic reprisal in mind, but made as a fiducially responsible investment. Also, someone will buy those bonds, they will ask a price to make a profit on the transaction when they offer the bonds for sale, and assuming the price recovers shortly after the dumping, what has been accomplished besides selling an asset at a bargain price?
If the entire EU tried to sell all their bonds on the same day, that would REALLY tank bond prices and give the buyers great looking yields. Its possible that would harm the EU more than the US, though. And again, if the price recovers in a month or two, what would have been the gain?
I personally like the idea of boycotting the WC and/or the Olympics as @fresh_42 floated- that would sting for a long time, and become an ugly part of Trump's legacy.
- 130
- 77
It is possible that Trump is looking for a war so as to expand his powers locally as well as to potentially cancel future USA elections.
- Admin
- #60
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 480
- 309
This has been a popular theory. It's a little early, but definitely a tactic to watch out for.