You’re describing the set of events that isn’t us forcefully taking Greenland, which is a much, much different discussion. One can argue the relative merits of spending public money on finding a deal that would be mutually beneficial for all parties, but the use or threat of force is unacceptable.
Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
Again, you’re attempting to rationalize a hostile military takeover with this in a way that is not justified.
No the tuck it isn’t. If I get a great deal on a car by bringing a gun to the dealership, nobody would applaud my excellent negotiating tactics. They would arrest me.
Maybe the US should just say "Don't want to give us Greenalnd? No problem - have fun protecting yourself from Russia without the US"
How do you think that conversation goes? But you seem to think we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to protect our 'allies' with little ot nothing in return.
How do you think that conversation goes? But you seem to think we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to protect our 'allies' with little ot nothing in return.
Yes, you’re properly describing the issue here. We have to decide what we expect of our leaders when it comes to morality and use of the overwhelming by power we have. I would argue we should not accept using our military to take sovereign land, and should use our power as an electorate to demand they don’t do that.
Sure! If we want to withdraw from defense alliances and hope for the best if those allies are overtaken by an expansionist threat, it might not be great but it’s a better option than being the expansionist threat.
If we don’t uphold the very simple principle of respecting the sovereignty of our allies and begin using force to take their land, there really isn’t much of a difference. We just become the bad guy who will forever decide whether or not our allies deserve to exist.
Being a 'bad guy' is dependent on how you treat people. Venezuelans will have a better life now and Greenalnders would have a better life with US control.
The people of the Netherlands literally will have no change at all to their lives.
And we already do decide whether or not our allies deserve to exist because we protect them and their puny armies from foreign threats. Its hte whole deal.
They get to give their people socialism because we protect them.
Yes, we have very famously done a tremendous job of treating our territories fairly at all times. Absolutely no issues there whatsoever, and Greenland would be a paradise under US control.
As for our allies in general, you’ve simply gone off the deep end. They do not exist at the pleasure of the United States, and maintaining our alliances with developed, prosperous nations is a benefit to our own national security.
only my confusion for continually stating the Netherlands
