Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 643K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
My opinion - if trump can acquire Greenland peacefully, in good faith, and with the majority support of those living there then I say hell yes. Do you disagree with that? If yes and it happened would you credit trump with that move?
Click to expand...

100% disagree with that. First, Denmark is a core ally - we can achieve strategically whatever we need to achieve under the current NATO umbrella - the only reason we are interested in Greenland is national ego. Second, US participation in a free-for-all in which national borders are disregarded is a significant disruption to the global stability that we haven't seen in a nuclear age. God help us manage the nuclear proliferation issues over the next 50 years when most of East Asia and the Middle East become nuclear powers.

The cost of war is significantly higher than in Metternich's day. Moving on Greenland will be a strategic debacle. The nitwittedness of those who want to blow up the post-WW2 international order is breathtaking.
 
Huh? said:
100% disagree with that. First, Denmark is a core ally - we can achieve strategically whatever we need to achieve under the current NATO umbrella - the only reason we are interested in Greenland is national ego. Second, US participation in a free-for-all in which national borders are disregarded is a significant disruption to the global stability that haven't seen in a nuclear age. God help us manage the nuclear proliferation issues over the next 50 years when most of East Asia and the Middle East become nuclear powers.

The cost of war is significantly higher than in Metternich's day. Moving on Greenland will be a strategic debacle.
Click to expand...
Define “moving” on Greenland.

The only downside I see is it could potentially push Russia and China toward more aggression but they are already trying to expand. Acquiring Greenland peacefully ( purchasing) is not remotely the same as taking it.
 
StrangePackage said:
Staggering bad faith when that one Republican is President and the leader of the party.

Or are you pretending this Representative came up with his himself in a vacuum?
Click to expand...
Staggeringly bad argument to say just because the potus says something that means the party agrees. Clearly per the article the majority of the party disagrees with him.
 
Callatoroy said:
Staggeringly bad argument to say just because the potus says something that means the party agrees. Clearly per the article the majority of the party disagrees with him.
Click to expand...
Clearly from the article that's unlikely to be true. Practically everybody who thinks Trump should pursue this would also have to be in the group that thinks it's good but unrealistic for that to be correct. Staggeringly bad argument on your part when your own source bites you in the ass. From your article.


But among Republicans, just 23% said Trump should pursue the policy, while around half – 48% – said it was good but unrealistic .
 
Callatoroy said:
Define “moving” on Greenland.

The only downside I see is it could potentially push Russia and China toward more aggression but they are already trying to expand. Acquiring Greenland peacefully ( purchasing) is not remotely the same as taking it.
Click to expand...

Your ability to see downside is remarkably short-sighted. This isn't a game of Risk, you fucking dumbass.
1. Denmark has an 800 year history with Greenland. It is not looking to sell, and would only sell it if a larger country effectively forced it to. I doubt that Denmark and the rest of NATO would view this process as "peaceful." We would lose ground with our most important US allies.
2 You underestimate how countries view the importance of international borders. The UK went to war over the Falklands; NATO went to war over Kuwait.
3. You are putting the entire post-WW2 international order at risk for little strategic benefit.
 
Callatoroy said:
Define “moving” on Greenland.

The only downside I see is it could potentially push Russia and China toward more aggression but they are already trying to expand. Acquiring Greenland peacefully ( purchasing) is not remotely the same as taking it.
Click to expand...
Greenland is already cooperating with the United States with respect to these widely recognized strategic interests. How many times do Greenland’s representatives (not to mention Denmark) and polling need to say “no thanks” before pushing this point is not at all friendly? Does refusing to forswear use of force in this pursuit (acknowledging he would not use force of arms in Panama or Greenland was something Trump refused to do when given the opportunity)change your opinion?

Trump is creating friction with long term, very cooperative allies in ways that are bolstering the claims of our rivals/enemies in Russia and China that their expansionist aggression is legitimate.

This isn’t a matter of open cost-benefit analysis about acquiring an available resource. Denmark is didn’t put Greenland on the market (or even have the right to do so). Denmark politely but firmly said no and now literally has MPs telling Trump to fuck off. Greenland has politely but firmly said no but agreed to continue and perhaps expand their close cooperation with the United States. But Trump won’t take no for an answer and his rhetoric is leading to end more extreme rhetoric among MAGA lawmakers (like Andy Ogles saying the United States is a top predator).
 
nycfan said:
Greenland is already cooperating with the United States with respect to these widely recognized strategic interests. How many times do Greenland’s representatives (not to mention Denmark) and polling need to say “no thanks” before pushing this point is not at all friendly? Does refusing to forswear use of force in this pursuit (acknowledging he would not use force of arms in Panama or Greenland was something Trump refused to do when given the opportunity)change your opinion?

Trump is creating friction with long term, very cooperative allies in ways that are bolstering the claims of our rivals/enemies in Russia and China that their expansionist aggression is legitimate.

This isn’t a matter of open cost-benefit analysis about acquiring an available resource. Denmark is didn’t put Greenland on the market (or even have the right to do so). Denmark politely but firmly said no and now literally has MPs telling Trump to fuck off. Greenland has politely but firmly said no but agreed to continue and perhaps expand their close cooperation with the United States. But Trump won’t take no for an answer and his rhetoric is leading to end more extreme rhetoric among MAGA lawmakers (like Andy Ogles saying the United States is a top predator).
Click to expand...
Maybe more polling is needed

gazette.com

Majority of Greenlanders favor Trump’s plan to join US: Poll

A new poll out of Greenland found its residents agree with President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that the country join the United States. Trump is the latest U.S. leader to attempt
gazette.com gazette.com
 
Huh? said:
Your ability to see downside is remarkably short-sighted. This isn't a game of Risk, you fucking dumbass.
1. Denmark has an 800 year history with Greenland. It is not looking to sell, and would only sell it if a larger country effectively forced it to. I doubt that Denmark and the rest of NATO would view this process as "peaceful." We would lose ground with our most important US allies.
2 You underestimate how countries view the importance of international borders. The UK went to war over the Falklands; NATO went to war over Kuwait.
3. You are putting the entire post-WW2 international order at risk for little strategic benefit.
Click to expand...
Nice insult. Your argument is about as dumb and weak as your insult.

1. I expressly stated "peacefully, in good faith, and with majority of support". You don't lose ground with allies that are completely dependent on you for keeping the boogie man away and for their economic health when you do something in good faith and with majority support.
2. I can't believe you were dumb enough to attempt to make some equivalency over the falklands and kuwait and acquiring greenland in good faith and with majority support even after the Denmark PM said it should be up to the local populations
3. The dumbness is self explanatory. Learn to comprehend what you are reading or ask for clarification you fucking dumbass.
 
CharmCityTiger said:
The firm that did that survey is called Patriot Polling which has a one star rating from 538 and is ranked 249 out of the 282 pollsters they rate. Oh, and it was also their first time conducting an international poll.
Click to expand...
It was a surprising result. I can imagine wanting independence, but I can't imagine a scenario where a population would want to separate from a relatively prosperous western democracy for another. The traditional ties would seem too much.
 
Huh? said:
Why spend the money. You can always fall back to your shtick of "people are saying"...
Click to expand...
I don't know man. After your first post I'm not sure you have a damn thing to fall back on. Being dumb doesn't offer you many options
 
gtyellowjacket said:
It was a surprising result. I can imagine wanting independence, but I can't imagine a scenario where a population would want to separate from a relatively prosperous western democracy for another. The traditional ties would seem too much.
Click to expand...
Denmark can't offer it much in the way of growth and development.
 
Callatoroy said:
Denmark can't offer it much in the way of growth and development.
Click to expand...
What will the US offer? Is it going to be Hawaii or will it be Puerto Rico/Guam/American Samoa level growth? I would think they would start as territories and then Republicans would forever prevent a bunch of people used to Scandinavian style government services from becoming a state. No Congressmen = very limited infrastructure money.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
It was a surprising result. I can imagine wanting independence, but I can't imagine a scenario where a population would want to separate from a relatively prosperous western democracy for another. The traditional ties would seem too much.
Click to expand...
This will give some insight.

www.theguardian.com

‘It should be up to us’: Greenlanders on Trump, Denmark – and their land

A visit by Donald Trump Jr amid comments by his US president-elect father have put their country and its future firmly in the spotlight
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
The federal government subsidizes Alaska to the tune of about $12,500 per resident per year. It's one of the highest amounts of any state. Are we thinking Greenland would be different for some reason?

This is such an insanely stupid discussion anyway. When you're talking about taking territory from our allies against their will, you've crossed into Sudetenland territory. I can't believe it's even being discussed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top