Can Anyone Explain Why, After 249 Years, We "Need" Greenland

As you might imagine my answer would be, coming to an arrangement with the Greenlanders that is to their benefit and addresses any concerns they might have about their autonomy, environmental protection, etc, then coming to a fair price with Denmark that also protects Danish honor in the matter. That is not without precedent. How do you think we got the Virgin Islands from Denmark? It wasn’t by threatening or bullying. It was by fair trade that spoke to Danish interest.

Now all of that said, I think the temperature might have gotten too high to reach such an agreement now. It’s just the only “way” that I would support.

 

The America I grew up in doesn’t threaten allies with “one way or the other” talk.

You just want to argue.

 

Well, I also support “never” taking military force off the table as a rule. In this case, I think the President should have been much more nuanced in his answer. And, yes, I know: that’s asking Trump to not be Trump. But if I were President, then my answer to that question — which to be fair, was intended to box the President in — would have been along the lines of, “Look, that’s not what we’re talking about here. Denmark is our friend, and Greenland is our friend. I have been doing land deals for most of my life. Some have been easy. Some have been contentious. But I never had to threaten to use force, and I’m not about to start now. We seek a fair and mutually beneficial deal with the people of Denmark and Greenland. That is all. If I seem persistent, then it’s because I don’t think taking ‘no’ as a final answer right away is in any of our interests. We reached a fair deal with Denmark over the Virgin Islands 100 years ago, and we can reach a fair deal here.” If pressed on categorical ruling out of force, I would just say my statement speaks for itself, and I have nothing further to add.

 

Obviously on that last part. I'm talking about chit-talkers like him, not the US Military. You know, the ones who fold up like a cheap pocket knife when the real stuff happens. In that respect, I'll take Danish volunteer soldiers over that trash all day and Sunday. At the very least, they'll be in better shape.

 

And all of that could be done very smartly and quietly, behind the scenes with real benefits (and reason to commit to the deal) for both parties.

Or we could be driven by the burning desire to "own libs".

Gee. I wonder which approach would be more successful in the long run (and keep in mind, the "benefits" to be realized by taking Greenland would be decades into the future)? A working relationship like what you suggest is both the cheaper and better alternative.

 

MAGA doesn't do nuance. I think we've all learned that by now. Nuance = LIbErAl. It's simplistic reactionary blather or nothing with these clowns.

 

I certainly agree there. The method has been extremely flawed if the end state desired is Greenland becoming U.S. territory AND not undermining our diplomatic and informational power internationally.

 

Well, they had better learn how. The kinds of things that serve to get you in power will often not keep you there. As the great Westerosi philosopher Tywin Lannister once said, “Winning a kingdom and ruling it are not the same thing.”

 

Ehhh… we should probably give it some time before we decide the methods used were failed. I highly doubt it’s possible that a deal for the largest island in the world will be worked out in a matter of months. Even if not completed by the end of his term, he may well be teeing it up for the next administration to close the deal.

 

Why is use of force against an ally on the table in the first place? Maybe at some point they’re no longer an ally or circumstances change in such a way that use of force could be considered due to Russia or China taking over part of it or something, but there’s no reason we can’t say use of force is off the table when talking about the sovereignty of an ally.

 

Haley? DeSantis?

But no. We can't have that. "Too LiBeRAl".

 

They won't. And why would they? Stupid sells in this country.

 

There was never a point to that anyway. Again, they always give us what we ask for. And, AGAIN (in my best Allen Iverson voice) we're talking about Greenland. GREENLAND!

 

That’s fair. I’m willing to hold out and see what happens (as if I have a choice). In truth, I would be very pleased if the President could pull off a deal that is fair and satisfactory to all parties. Like I often say, I serve the United States, not a political party. So I want the country to succeed even if it means President Trump also succeeds. Conversely, I don’t want the country to fail just so failure can be laid at the President’s feet. I see a lot of goodness in bringing in Greenland justly. But I see a lot of badness if there is any hint of injustice in it.

 

Mind you it was a left winger who brought it up.

Paint with whatever brush you want, but like I said I couldn’t care less.

You don’t share the same views with every left winger here, why would you think anyone who isn’t a left winger would share the same views as every right winger?

It’s baffling.

 

100%.

I’m on record as saying Trump is an asshat. Pretty much the last 4 years I’ve said I wish he would just shut up and go away.

 

The research I’ve done suggests it does but I’m happy to learn the facts.

 

Well that’s how a reasonable person would reply we know Trump doesn’t know how to do that.

 

I had no idea such laws existed.

Thanks for that bit of info.

Are suggesting she be charged?

 

Yes, I believe I alluded to that. A House of the Dragon quote I agree with: “Perhaps those who strive for [the crown] are the least suited to wear it.” I’m nobody. And I shouldn’t be President. But I have to go all the way back to Bush’s dad to find a President I am not confident I could do a better job than.