Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I get the desire to own it, I don't get the desire or rationale to use coercion.
If we're using the business venture analogue, Trump knows that coercion ends with an expensive lawsuit.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Greenland
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
If we're using the business venture analogue, Trump knows that coercion ends with an expensive lawsuit.
Can you unpack that? I initially had the same opinion as you, but the more I looked into it the more I realized that there doesn't seem to be an objective benefit to owning it beyond the access we already enjoy today. I'm open to having my mind changed. I'm just not seeing it.
That’s because there isn’t a valid, objective argument for the US owning Greenland. The arguments to back that up are all over this thread.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I mean, it revolves around not having to pay Denmark for whatever raw materials can be mined there.
But I'm not going to defend the policy because it's not defensible.
Trump certainly did a 180 from his neo-isolationist campaign.
He was never an isolationist. He’s a unilateralist.
I'll grant that there's generally an argument for owning something vice leasing/borrowing it if only because the owner can't evict you. Yes, the possibility that Denmark doing that was remote, given that it's been such a staunch ally to date, but could've increased in future decades as relations evolve over time. But what POTUS is doing now has probably increased that probability by an order of magnitude.
More importantly it would grant a method of denial to keep our geopolitical foes out of the space.
China has repeatedly attempted to set up the “Polar Silk Road” with efforts like loans for construction and renovation to airports that Greenland would never have been able to pay back. These efforts are largely unsuccessful for a combination of our lobbying and Covid economics, but they exist which a lot of the admin critics suddenly won’t acknowledge (kinda like the Panama Canal stuff). That would have allowed them to press for more access in things like basing rights or economic efforts to limit our access.
Belt and road is not a soft power influence campaign, it’s a method of economic exploitation.
Last edited:
Attempted is the key word. They weren’t successful, due to our diplomatic pressure. Which is a good thing!
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Just like Jon Stewart opined "Who thought it was a good idea to tell Trump about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?!?"
Who thought it was a good idea to let the War College arctic nerd into the Oval office?
How is that justification to threaten to take Greenland by force?!
Also, if we did that our geopolitical foes would gain ground almost everywhere else in the world. Treaties that give us access and allies would be seen as worthless. How can folks not comprehend that? Why are we trying to justify threatening some of our closest and longstanding allies? How on earth is this a thing?!
Nobody seems to think we are realistically going to take Greenland by force, except its narrative supporters.
“Trumps Gonna!” Continues to be the hysteria vocalization of choose, but remember any day now we’re gonna get that Nuclear war with North Korea.
You honestly think they’ve given up the idea?
China is interested in far more than that Island off their coast in the long run, and they have political unification to allow them to fight continuously for things we ebb and flow on election cycles with.