| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" 13:28 - Jan 6 with 6428 views | giant_stow |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
I doubt anyone would too, but how will Europe / NATO respond when* this happens?
*Seems pretty likely to me |  |
| |  |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:36 - Jan 6 with 2484 views | Illinoisblue |
Feels like “U.S. President invading another country to kidnap its leader, and threatening to do the same to other countries, to deflect from a massive pedophile scandal.” should be a bigger story than it is. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:41 - Jan 6 with 2418 views | Swansea_Blue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:36 - Jan 6 by Illinoisblue |
Feels like “U.S. President invading another country to kidnap its leader, and threatening to do the same to other countries, to deflect from a massive pedophile scandal.” should be a bigger story than it is. |
Which in itself deflected from the Epstein files. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:43 - Jan 6 with 2407 views | baxterbasics |
NATO would effectively become defunct. Worthless.
Europe (incl UK) could try a bunch of sanctions, most of which would hurt us more than the USA. Anyone prepared to go up against them militarily? Unlikely.
Nothing anyone can do that will lay a glove on them short of starting a nuclear war.
We have entered an era similar to the cold war where all the little players had few choices aside from align with the Soviets or the Americans. Only now with the ascendency of China we have three strong men. Choose a side, peoples.
Perhaps it was ever thus? Although there was a period where most players would at least pretend international law and cooperation was important, and it was a little easier to argue, post-WW2, that the Yanks were at least the good guys. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:43 - Jan 6 with 2406 views | WeWereZombies |
Seems like a huge bluff to me. Certainly the United States has an impressive and seemingly overwhelming military superiority but they also have a dreadful record in committing to conflicts which they then have to withdraw from ignominiously such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. Add in the risk of trade embargoes and other soft power losses to view the matter as far from a done deal, and Canada have yet to speak up about the matter... |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:45 - Jan 6 with 2385 views | Swansea_Blue |
I was thinking about this in the gym this morning (good knows why). Would Europe and allies actually be prepared to physically defend Greenland? It seems like an unthinkable question to even contemplate and it would be horribly messy against their overwhelming power, but here we are. I still assume the US wouldn’t use force to annex it, but we can’t ignore that they are pretty much a rogue state now, bloodthirsty and highly unpredictable. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:52 - Jan 6 with 2295 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:45 - Jan 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was thinking about this in the gym this morning (good knows why). Would Europe and allies actually be prepared to physically defend Greenland? It seems like an unthinkable question to even contemplate and it would be horribly messy against their overwhelming power, but here we are. I still assume the US wouldn’t use force to annex it, but we can’t ignore that they are pretty much a rogue state now, bloodthirsty and highly unpredictable. |
I think if there was an Nato build up in Greenland to defend their interests that would probably be the trigger for officials and the US military to start turning against Trump.
The idea of Trump leading the US to war against its own allies, could trigger a attempt at an impeachment or at the worst end, could trigger a civil war. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:53 - Jan 6 with 2294 views | Dubtractor |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:36 - Jan 6 by Illinoisblue |
Feels like “U.S. President invading another country to kidnap its leader, and threatening to do the same to other countries, to deflect from a massive pedophile scandal.” should be a bigger story than it is. |
The number of people who seem to be happy to excuse it is remarkable tbh. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:53 - Jan 6 with 2299 views | Guthrum |
If it happened, NATO would no longer exist.
However Denmark is a different kettle of fish to Venezuela. Nobody (apart from Russia and Cuba) was particularly sad to see Maduro removed, even if it was a massive violation of sovreignty and international law. But Copenhagen has a lot of friends. It would severely p1ss off virtually the whole of Europe, plus Canada. That is likely to be more than the US administration would want to stir up, unless they have completely taken leave of their senses.
This is more about pressuring Greenland and Denmark to hand over mineral rights - to Trump's family and associates - than necessarily wanting the expense and problems of an attempted occupation.
The military security angle in Trump's rhetoric is entirely flannel. They already have base facilities there and would encounter no difficulty in expanding them or building more - it is NATO member state territory, after all. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:54 - Jan 6 with 2276 views | lowhouseblue |
the likelihood of us military action in greenland is extremely low. the likelihood of wider us / nato / denmark / eu agreements over security arrangements and resources relating to greenland, all to the benefit of the us, is high. reaching such agreements might just be a way of bolstering nato and us commitment to it. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:55 - Jan 6 with 2266 views | StokieBlue |
The latest Miller gambit:
"The real question is what right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?"
SB |  | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:59 - Jan 6 with 2232 views | eirannach_gorm |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:45 - Jan 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was thinking about this in the gym this morning (good knows why). Would Europe and allies actually be prepared to physically defend Greenland? It seems like an unthinkable question to even contemplate and it would be horribly messy against their overwhelming power, but here we are. I still assume the US wouldn’t use force to annex it, but we can’t ignore that they are pretty much a rogue state now, bloodthirsty and highly unpredictable. |
I'd imagine Denmark might have something to say about that. America already have a base in Greenland and you shouldn't really sh1t on your own doorstep. Not sure Greenlanders ( or Canadians ) are up for joining the expanding kingdom of Trumpland. |  | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:00 - Jan 6 with 2236 views | giant_stow |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:54 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
the likelihood of us military action in greenland is extremely low. the likelihood of wider us / nato / denmark / eu agreements over security arrangements and resources relating to greenland, all to the benefit of the us, is high. reaching such agreements might just be a way of bolstering nato and us commitment to it. |
I don't think Trump even has to talk about military action to get Greenland - he'd most likely just announce it's now US property. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:00 - Jan 6 with 2229 views | NedPlimpton |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:45 - Jan 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was thinking about this in the gym this morning (good knows why). Would Europe and allies actually be prepared to physically defend Greenland? It seems like an unthinkable question to even contemplate and it would be horribly messy against their overwhelming power, but here we are. I still assume the US wouldn’t use force to annex it, but we can’t ignore that they are pretty much a rogue state now, bloodthirsty and highly unpredictable. |
Would we even be able to physically defend anyone against the US? Most of our military tech, equipment etc comes from the US and we're so heavily dependent upon US companies for weapons, AI, Cloud infrastructure etc. I'm not sure it would even be possible for us to do practically anything militarily without the US? |  | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:01 - Jan 6 with 2217 views | GlasgowBlue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:36 - Jan 6 by Illinoisblue |
Feels like “U.S. President invading another country to kidnap its leader, and threatening to do the same to other countries, to deflect from a massive pedophile scandal.” should be a bigger story than it is. |
An operation like the one to kidnap Maduro takes months, if not years of preparation. They had to embed agents deep within the country and covertly turn many of Maduro's key people. It's not something you wake up in the morning and think "this will divert bad headlines".
Not saying that isn't an added bonus though. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:02 - Jan 6 with 2214 views | giant_stow |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:53 - Jan 6 by Guthrum |
If it happened, NATO would no longer exist.
However Denmark is a different kettle of fish to Venezuela. Nobody (apart from Russia and Cuba) was particularly sad to see Maduro removed, even if it was a massive violation of sovreignty and international law. But Copenhagen has a lot of friends. It would severely p1ss off virtually the whole of Europe, plus Canada. That is likely to be more than the US administration would want to stir up, unless they have completely taken leave of their senses.
This is more about pressuring Greenland and Denmark to hand over mineral rights - to Trump's family and associates - than necessarily wanting the expense and problems of an attempted occupation.
The military security angle in Trump's rhetoric is entirely flannel. They already have base facilities there and would encounter no difficulty in expanding them or building more - it is NATO member state territory, after all. |
Is NATO already dead? I mean if Russia attacked a small European country tomorrow, would the US defend it? Not so sure, although I spose Europe might have to try for show. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:03 - Jan 6 with 2205 views | DJR |
There is a contradiction at the heart of the supposed reason (security) for acquiring Greenland, and that is that Trump obviously doesn't consider Russia to be a military threat to the US given his approach in relation to Putin and Ukraine.
And it's a bit fanciful to think that Greenland lies within the Chinese sphere of influence.
In any event, if security were an issue, the 1951 agreement between Denmark and the US would enable the US to strengthen its presences in Greenland.
As it is, according to a recent Danish article, 150 US service members are stationed at its main base in Greenland, after the US significantly reduced its presence from 6000 personnel during the Cold War. [Post edited 6 Jan 14:06]
|  | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:09 - Jan 6 with 2155 views | Blueschev |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:45 - Jan 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was thinking about this in the gym this morning (good knows why). Would Europe and allies actually be prepared to physically defend Greenland? It seems like an unthinkable question to even contemplate and it would be horribly messy against their overwhelming power, but here we are. I still assume the US wouldn’t use force to annex it, but we can’t ignore that they are pretty much a rogue state now, bloodthirsty and highly unpredictable. |
Given that the US have military bases in many European countries, I very much doubt it. |  | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:11 - Jan 6 with 2149 views | bluester |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:55 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
The latest Miller gambit:
"The real question is what right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?"
SB |
JFC, what a ghoul. Does Miller have that much influence though? Is he anymore than a loudmouth fascist piece of shit? | | | |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:13 - Jan 6 with 2125 views | GlasgowBlue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 13:53 - Jan 6 by Dubtractor |
The number of people who seem to be happy to excuse it is remarkable tbh. |
I haven't seen my people defend the operation. Those that have seem to be mostly people in Venezuela.
But it is possible for two things to be true at the same time. The removal of an evil dictator who stole the election is good for the people of Venezuela. And kidnapping the head of state of a sovereign country, despite that head of state not being legitimately elected, is a bad thing to do. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:16 - Jan 6 with 2109 views | lowhouseblue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:13 - Jan 6 by GlasgowBlue |
I haven't seen my people defend the operation. Those that have seem to be mostly people in Venezuela.
But it is possible for two things to be true at the same time. The removal of an evil dictator who stole the election is good for the people of Venezuela. And kidnapping the head of state of a sovereign country, despite that head of state not being legitimately elected, is a bad thing to do. |
it also has to be said that compared to previous us foreign interventions, under presidents of both parties, far fewer people have died. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:25 - Jan 6 with 2064 views | Guthrum |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:11 - Jan 6 by bluester |
JFC, what a ghoul. Does Miller have that much influence though? Is he anymore than a loudmouth fascist piece of shit? |
Massive influence. He is the ideologue behind most of the ideas coming out of Trump's mouth. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:28 - Jan 6 with 2043 views | Guthrum |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:02 - Jan 6 by giant_stow |
Is NATO already dead? I mean if Russia attacked a small European country tomorrow, would the US defend it? Not so sure, although I spose Europe might have to try for show. |
Depends how Trump felt that day and whether he gets on with the leader of that country. | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:28 - Jan 6 with 2042 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:01 - Jan 6 by GlasgowBlue |
An operation like the one to kidnap Maduro takes months, if not years of preparation. They had to embed agents deep within the country and covertly turn many of Maduro's key people. It's not something you wake up in the morning and think "this will divert bad headlines".
Not saying that isn't an added bonus though. |
Entirely possible that the operation was moved up from later in his term as a direct response to the Epstein story though isn't it? | |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:28 - Jan 6 with 2041 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
Even under the frightful, aggressive and delusional leadership in the US, I cannot believe they would be so stupid as to try to invade Greenland. They have too much at stake, with military bases in Nato member states all around the globe. Well as soon as they invade, that would mean their bases would need to be de-activated. It potentially puts the US at war with all the other Nato members. At best, that would require all of the resources on both sides - leaving Russia and China free to carve up whatever they want around the globe.
Even the US cannot possibly be that stupid.
IMHO, it's rhetoric, and as long as Denmark, Greenland and other NATO members stand firm, that is what it will remain. |  |
| |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:29 - Jan 6 with 2039 views | giant_stow |
| "Trump aide says no-one would fight US over Greenland" on 14:16 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
it also has to be said that compared to previous us foreign interventions, under presidents of both parties, far fewer people have died. |
true, but only so far. What happens when the new govt there wants to do something the US doesn't approve of? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
