Gulfstream4 said:
Civilized said:
Gulfstream4 said:
Civilized said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Gulfstream4 said:
wolfme said:
Does anyone believe Greenlanders are Americans or should be? Where do we stand on the subject of colonization?
Are Alaskans Americans? Are Hawaiians American? Heck, are Somali's Americans?
You'll cry about immigration today but nothing you can do after colonizing different places in the world. Look no further than the UK. Most their "immigration problems" are from UK born people. It's a pretty tight rope to walk if you want immigration enforcement and expansionist policy
I'll ask again, are Alaskans and Hawaiians Americans?
They are, yep. Do you want Greenland to be Americans, share your tax paying money with them rather than fix things within our borders?
I asked the first question and you're yet to answer it. But you keep asking your questions
Great. Then the people of Greenland can be Americans too? I would rather share my tax money with Greenland than Somalia. You?
What is your exact question again?
My question is whether or not you think America should take over Greenland against their will. It sounds like you think the answer is yes. I was just curious of the common sentiment around here. I got it now
I personally don't see a world where doing that and decreasing the national debt / small government influence on individual lives (something I'm passionate about) can coexist.
"Take over" is a disingenuous question. Next you'll drop the "stolen land" catch phrase?
Do I think America should acquire Greenland for national security and to keep Russia/China out of the Western Hemisphere, yes I do.
Would you rather China/Russia be to the west, south (Venezuela) and to the east in Greenland?
I'm fundamentally small government. I don't believe the government in any form is competent enough to protect the right of individual people. It's just that
So, what would you do? Allow America to get boxed in?
Their free will and their individual rights matter before I care what happens to America in this dooms day Cold War scenario people have thought up in the Artic.
The way it should've done is through partnership and positive trade deals, like America has done with Europe since WW2. Policy based on suppression and expansion simply has never worked since the beginning of time.
We are not Russia and China and I sure as hell don't want to be.
Trump boxes our adversaries out of the Western Hemisphere-democrats outrage
Trump doesn't box our adversaries out of the Western Hemisphere-democrats outrage
However, your virtue signal is received and that along will lead to world peace in the future.
Your problem is "boxing adversaries out of the Western Hemisphere" is a horrible solution in search of a made-up problem.
What percentage of voters or even of savvy politicians or political operators would have listed this as a top-25 area of concern for Trump's presidency?
It's only become a problem now that Trump's "solution" is completely alienating us from our biggest allies and yet again sparking another stupid trade war.
Are you ever going to answer why we can't simply increase troop levels and surveillance there, AS WE'RE UNILATERALLY ENTITLED TO DO, and collaborate with our allies to do the same? We can do that anytime we want without "taking Greenland."
And as with all things Trump, the Administration is totally dishonest in their portrayal of this as a national security issue. This is about a Trump's ego, and natural resources, in no particular order.
If it were about national security there are many more effective, less costly, and vastly less adversarial ways to check the security box.
I'd say good luck selling this to voters but I actually think/hope Congress may actually be spurred to act on this. This is too stupid, and too damaging to meet even their rock-bottom standards for reasonableness and legality.
Your President Trump is looking down the road 20 years. Who knows what the NATO alliance will look like? If I had to guess, I'd say weak and fruitless.
Tell me one thing that would change for the worse in your everyday life if Greenland became part of the United States? One thing?
What would change for the worse? My kids and grandkids would be less secure because we just turned all our biggest allies against us for a totally unnecessary land grab.
Why would you guess that the strongest and most successful international alliance in modern history for the last 80 years would be "weak and fruitless" in 20 years? What in the world is that based on?
Less secure because which European country is going to cross the ocean and threaten your kids?
It's only the strongest because we pay for. There is not a single country in Europe that scares anyone.
So wait...
You consider Russia and China's Western Hemisphere expansion so clear and present a danger that you feel the need for rash action (despite not even mentioning the topic in a National Security Strategy briefing prepared for Congress and published two months ago).
But the action you want to undertake is forcibly taking another NATO's nation's territory and ruining 80-year-old alliances, so that you can (presumably) militarily occupy Greenland?
Except that we already have a military base in and the ability to expand our capabilities in Greenland RIGHT NOW, without doing any of the ally bridge-burning and Greenland-taking stuff?
And evidently, you think that long-term, we're better off jettisoning our European allies and just going it alone? Us against the world? You think that somehow makes you safer in the upcoming existential territory, trade, or actual wars vs. Russia and China?
Is that an accurate summary of the stupidity?
