Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Sort of fake news.

Yep. Fake noos combined with Trump derangement syndrome 

Funny how it's normal behaviour when it applies anywhere else, but as soon as Donald is mentioned it becomes Trump Derangement Syndrome 

The consensus seems to be that it's ok to covertly break into Osama Bin Laden's house and shoot him in the face, but you can't overtly arrest a former dictator and extradite them to face trial.

I wonder if the US strategy is actually quite clever, if somewhat left field...

By making Venezuela a criminal state, it allows for some form of sanction or punishment to be imposed. Much like invading Iraq.Twice. The unspoken motivation is obviously energy control rather than drug trafficking, and in a world where China has effective control over everything else, is it really such a surprise?

Greenland is a very different proposition as it's purely a strategic defence concept and is effectively a barren wasteland that's being used for subsistence farming and military development testing. Transferring it from Denmark to the US would save Denmark a fair amount of cash without upsetting the status quo within NATO, yet the media seems hell bent on the mere suggestion becoming a declaration of war.

You do talk absolute shite sometimes. Trump derangement syndrome in reverse.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Its quite simple really.
If the population of Greenland vote in favour of becoming a part of the U.S. (or a colony of it) then fine.
If the U.S. take it over without their consent, then they are bo different from Putin or any other despot who captures a country by force.

[Doctor Gollum]

Its quite simple really.
If the population of Greenland vote in favour of becoming a part of the U.S. (or a colony of it) then fine.
If the U.S. take it over without their consent, then they are bo different from Putin or any other despot who captures a country by force.

Like Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan... Just saying

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

[Doctor Gollum]

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

Perhaps, but it's not exactly a new idea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_proposals_for_the_purchase_of_Greenland_by_the_United_States

Would a simple transfer of control really constitute a moral issue?

[STEMO]

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

The man is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and not very nice. 

[STEMO]

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

Perhaps, but it's not exactly a new idea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_proposals_for_the_purchase_of_Greenland_by_the_United_States

Would a simple transfer of control really constitute a moral issue?

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.

[Migalot]

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.
[/quote]

There are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainians who would welcome a transfer of control. Especially those Orthodox Christians who have been banned from their Church or want to speak in their mother tongue and have their children likewise educated. Also relatives of the 16000 killed by the Ukrainian bombs, or who died when that building in Odessa was torched. Remember that Zelensky's presidential manifesto was good relations with Russia. Funny how he forgot that when he was elected.

As far as Trump is concerned, he seems to take fun in ignoring the US Constitution.

...and Greenland was discovered by Denmark before the US even existed!

[Varche]

It is time Europe grew a pair and stood up to Trump over Greenland.

Problem is that really means the EU and they have a good track record of faffing about making decisions that they then all abide by. If Trump invades Greenland it is a done deal. Who exactly would make them leave?

We are at a critical point in the security of Europe path.  NATO would implode.

[Doctor Gollum]

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

Perhaps, but it's not exactly a new idea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_proposals_for_the_purchase_of_Greenland_by_the_United_States

Would a simple transfer of control really constitute a moral issue?

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.

It's only an invasion if someone invades. Wouldn't be any different if Denmark signed it over to France or Canada. And if you ask the locals, they'd be quite happy being independent. Ironically that would leave them incredibly vulnerable, especially as there's probably more US military personnel in Greenland than Danish.

If Ol' Sippy Cup or Obama had suggested any of the things Trump has said or done, the coverage would be "That's an interesting idea..."

Not saying I support some of the things going on, just that the coverage and spin is designed to anger and cause outrage just because Trump is POTUS.

And regardless of whether you or I agree with his policies or not, he has thus far done EVERYTHING he said he would... Not just in this term but also the previous one which constitutes some sort of a record in politics.

[Migalot]

he has thus far done EVERYTHING he said he would...

Except, "no new wars"... 

[Doctor Gollum]

he has thus far done EVERYTHING he said he would...

Except, "no new wars"... 

Which new war exactly?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Greenland has a population of around 56,000, mostly Eskimo. There is no army.

Trump doesn't need to invade.

I believe there is a small US military base there.

He can simply walk in and have a nice cup of tea.

The question is what would assorted European countries do if he did this?

[STEMO]

Greenland has a population of around 56,000, mostly Eskimo. There is no army.

Trump doesn't need to invade.

I believe there is a small US military base there.

He can simply walk in and have a nice cup of tea.

The question is what would assorted European countries do if he did this?

Bomb MacDonalds

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Size of population is irrelevant. Its the principle of self determination that matters.
It has been the bedrock of governance of the free world for a long time, and why the UK sent its forces to take back the Falklands, for example.
If the U.S. throws that in the bin it becomes another rogue state like Russia, Iran, Libya etc. etc.