Is the dispute about what counts as "imminent"... or rather how early we need to act in advance of a security risk becoming imminent? I go back to what Scott Bessent said yesterday: "The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency."
Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?
ADDED: Trump wrote this letter to the prime minister of Norway: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
AND: See also "Greenlanders speak out against Danish rule after decades of forced sterilization, poor living conditions: ‘They stole our future'" (NY Post).
Native Greenlander Amarok Petersen was 27 years old when... a medical doctor discovered an IUD birth control device in her body that she didn’t know she had. Danish doctors had implanted it when she was just 13 as part of a population control program for thousands of native Greenlandic girls and women....
“The Danes don’t see us as humans,” Petersen said at a local Inuit restaurant overlooking Nuuk’s famous fjords. “They think we’re too expensive, too small a population. But they take our land, our children, our lives and expect thanks.”
Posts
158 comments:
"Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?
WE don't really give a FUCK what THEY want.
Trump should just give Europe including the UK, to Russia and while they're dealing with that we'll secure our homeland.
Her majesty's government's opinion revoked, 1776.
Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?
It might damage their sense of superiority, which is about all some of them have left.
“Some fear” — haha. We’re the boss in the neighborhood.
Perhaps Herr Schtarmer would like to be arrested for his incendiary, OFFENSIVE language?!
The usual possums tillis and the alaskan ogre
Is there a weaker leader in “the West” than Keir Starmer? His government was arresting around 30 people a day last year because of social media posts that the government didn’t like. If you can’t handle social media posts, every country in the world will do what they want to your country.
I will take things no one wants for $1000, Chuck.
China is just waiting for us to get into a fight with NATO and they will seize Taiwan. We might win a large glacier, but they will get all the top microchip plants.
…so they bitch when they're asked to pay for their agreed share of NATO defense, they whine when they’re asked to remove their thumb off the scale of fair trade, they complain about the ‘tone’ of their only living adult relative. Europe is a gaggle of petulant spoiled children wailing and crying at any attempt to drag them into adulthood…but bet your sweet bippy these kids will be partying like rich kids on winter break at the Olympics in a couple weeks, frantically waving at their respective nations athletes from the VIP box in between selfies with their eurotrash friends- hey! is that Snoop Dogg?
Well he hates his people as do all of the leaders except meloni and urban
For a year we have been hearing how tariffs will only hurt the US consumer and have no effect on the country being tarrif fed.
Now tariffs hurt the country being tarrif fed not us?
What changed?
John Henry
Tarriffed as in having a tarrif imposed on them
John Henry
…and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway?
I love this. I’m imagining Siri saying it with the Staten Island accent turned on…
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway?
Land cannot be "owned." It can only be "defended."
Just as the native American Indian.
Now tariffs hurt the country being tarrif fed not us?
Schrödinger’s Tariffs
By the way, where's my $2,000 Tarriff Check that Trump promised me?
I'm not voting for Republicans in the mid-terms if that check doesn't show up soon.
"Land cannot be owned, it can only be defended."
Just ask any squatter. They know this.
In America, a squatter can legally take your land and the cops can't and won't do anything about it. It's a civil matter.
What John Henry is saying is that President Trump is unquestionably tariffic.
’Trump’s unwillingness, so far, to back down risks driving a deeper wedge in the Western alliance or, some fear, causing an irreparable break.’
They need us. We don’t need them.
Tarriffed as in having a tarrif imposed on them.
@John Henry, Starmer seems “tariffied.”
I’m here until Thursday. Try the veal.
I think highlighting the strategic importance of protecting and expanding the US military foothold in Greenland is the right move. Pressing Denmark and the euro peons for transfer of ownership to the US of A is another great idea.
That said, Trump does sound like a petulant rich kid disappointed he didn't get a new state of the art PlayStation for Christmas. I know, I know. n-dimensional chess and all. However these antics diminish his support at home for an idea that is quite sound.
"Trump's Greenland Folly," from the pro-Trump conservatives over at Powerline Blog:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/trumps-greenland-folly.php
By the way, where's my $2,000 Tarriff Check that Trump promised me?
I think he decided to give it to the active military members.
What about all those rare earth minerals? link
"rebutted the president’s claim that the Arctic territory faces imminent security risks from Russia and China."
Anybody read the WaPo? What were the rebuttals? Was Murkowski just jealous? Other than the fact that this is causing infighting amongst allies (heaven forbid) I've yet to see anything contradicting Greenland is an immediate concern and that the US would be it's best steward.
We might win a large glacier…
Ha ha. Greenland does indeed have a “large glacier”—known as the “Inland Ice”—plus many other glaciers, which would make the world's greatest island (if a U.S. state) by far the largest state in the Union.
But, as I pointed out in more detail a couple of threads back, if one discounts the areas covered by Greenland's glaciers and ice sheet(s) completely, that would still leave Greenland as a U.S. state the 3rd largest in the nation—behind Alaska and Texas, and ahead of California and Montana.
Friends dont let friends, take the washington post seriously
Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?
Because it's Trump asking. He could offer each of them their heart's desire and they would reject it, because Trump.
"but they will get all the top microchip plants."
If China seizes Taiwan those plants will be steaming piles of rubble.
Untrue that "the point is disputed" by our Allies at all. Denmark's 2025 assessment was that China and Russia pose a direct threat to Greenland right now, with China being especially aggressive about fishing in the territorial waters and constantly surveilling with subs. So a true and correct journalistic piece would acknowledge that our NSA and Denmark's equivalent both came to the same exact conclusion about the importance of repelling the China and Russia threats to Greenland.
But Trump! It is EU politicians — not their businessmen, spies and security experts — just politicians who oppose Trump for their left-wing political reasons. Corporate Media trying to frame the story as one man against all is cute but wholly dishonest.
How do we know for certain? Because in 2017 when the governor (?) of Greenland went to China and asked them to build a new airport in Greenland, Denmark slapped them down and said all the same things the paragraph above says. They are only posturing as if there's no threat now... because "Trump."
I was told in these very comments that tariffs only harm the American consumer. Perhaps Inga could explain it to the Prime Minister?
Flood Minnesota with shit while Trump and the billionaires go for the Western Hemisphere riches.
And the Gullibles ork and clap.
"Trump’s unwillingness, so far, to back down risks driving a deeper wedge in the Western alliance or, some fear, causing an irreparable break."
Independence.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, . . ."
To quote Biden the Boob, "Well you know the thing . . ."
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
’…pro-Trump conservatives over at Powerline Blog’
lol
Serious Questions:
WHY are we Still in NATO?
WHY is there STILL a NATO?
WHO does NATO plan on invading next?
HOW will NATO be able to do that, if they are at war with US?
Trump’s letter to the Norwegian PM is bizarre. He admits that one of his motivations for this foolishness is that he is piqued that he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus is a point where is narcissism crosses the line from amusing and pathetic to dangerous.
If they really want to screw with the Big Buffoon then the next Peace Prize should be awarded to Kushner and Witkoff for their Mideast work. His head might explode.
"If China seizes Taiwan those plants will be steaming piles of rubble."
And Trump will be forever the guy who botched Taiwan and declared war on China.
That is, after deciding that we would rather have Greenlands glaciers than NATO allies fighting China with us.
I am sure his 'no foreign intervention' voters will love it.
Lonejustice is an idiot if he thinks that the guys at PowerLine blog are "pro-trump." LOL they bitch about him as much as you dorks here.
Such a blinkered limited worldview you have, lefty skank lawyer Mark. Have any of your lame ass predictions come true yet?
"And Trump will be forever the guy who botched Taiwan and declared war on China."
If China invades Taiwan, Trump will have declared war on China. Got it.
Thank you Howard. Great line. I have long supported a general tarriffed, say 10-15% on everthing coming into the us from anywhere.
I have long been against tariffs of varying rates on varying goods from varying countries.
I was dubious about pdjt's tariffs a year ago.
I was wrong. It still goes against what I believe but seems to be working for reasons I don't understand.
I will not complain about them. Just let the man work.
John Henry
Trump Links Greenland Threats to Missing Out on Nobel Prize ~ WSJ
"US president texts Norwegian leader that he no longer feels obliged ‘to think purely of Peace’ after missing out on award"
Embarrassing. Anyone associated with or supporting this administration should be embarrassed to read this. Congress in particular.
Oh and does the FIFA Peace Prize not mean anything!?!
Nice to see Tillis and Murkowski trying to drive a wedge between us and our allies. Fucking RINOs really have done so much for America haven't they!
And don't forget to tip the serving wrench, big mike
John Henry
@ Mark
NATO member nations are not obligated by the treaty to assist the United States in a defense of Taiwan.
European nations are just as dependent on those Taiwanese microchips as we are.
It's quite likely the only thing keeping China from invading Taiwan is the knowledge that they will not end up with the chip plants.
some senior members of Congress who have rebutted the president’s claim
i wondered WHO these "senior members" were, so i checked.
senior members of the House and Senate
Sen. Lisa Murkowski
Sen. Chris Coons
Sen. Thom Tillis
Sen. Mitch McConnell
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
Sen. Ruben Gallego
Reps. Ro Khanna
and then THIS ONE..
Don Bacon (R-Nebraska)
Dave Begly? care to comment on this Cornhusker?
"He admits that one of his motivations for this foolishness is that he is piqued that he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Trump is smart. He's just pointing out that if his efforts for Peace aren't worthy of the Nobel Committee's attentions, then maybe he should abandon them and seek a better prize.
This is evidence of Trump growing in office. He's starting to learn it's not about Trump ... it's about protecting America.
The Nobel's of the world are never going to be about protecting America and they're certainly not going to give a prize to the person doing it.
So fuck 'em.
…nobody’s mentioned it but we all know Trump loves golf and for a fact there’s at least one good golf club in Greenland
John Henry it all comes down to America being a fantastic place to sell goods and services and no other country is so valued by the rest of the world, therefore there is a price premium we can enjoy for being a stable reliable trading partner. Those other countries not reacting like the experts said they would? They know they have been tariffing/trader restricting/VATing us for so long that of course we were eventually going to reciprocate.
That price premium they are willing to pay? Trump's tariff dashboard is the only place you can get a real-world test for what the sellers are willing to endure to keep selling. Canada is the other side of the story.
@lonejustice
Hindraker's assumption that the current status of relationships will remain into the future belies his argument. What we see currently happening internationally should prevent making that assumption. See MJB's comment above.
Keir Starmer should be arrested for speech that is threatening, grossly offensive, and causes anxiety—like the thousands he's had arrested for mean tweets.
I think we are now over $1,000,000,000 (trillion) in Taiwan invest in US semiconductor plants.
John Henry
Either he's crazy like a fox, or it's time for the 25th amendment. Time will tell. Europe got themselves into this bind through over reliance on the US while they built their much vaunted safety net, and we paid for the brutish stuff. Now they are defending Greenland by saying that the US will never be able to match the medical benefits and other social welfare benefits that they provide for the Inuit who live there.
How long is that safety net going to hold if Europe has to pay for its own defense, and insists on poking the bear just because they have been doing it for centuries?
As palmerston said 'no permanent allies, just permanent interests'
rebutted the president’s claim
I bet they didn't. They may have rejected it, they may have denied it, but they did not rebut it.
Somebody needs to buy the WaPo editors a dictionary.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/01/18/chinese-solar-manufacturers-report-major-financial-losses/
It's quite likely the only thing keeping China from invading Taiwan is the knowledge that they will not end up with the chip plants.
That is part of it. The major factor causing butt pucker over there is that they (and Russia) sent their best anti-aircraft defense systems to Iran and to Venezuela and staffed them with trained Cuban mercenaries if not CCP officers and both tests did not go well for China.
Both times the systems were destroyed before they knew an attack was coming and not one American air asset was taken out of the fight. China will absolutely not move on Taiwan so long as they are functionally blind to our stealth aircraft. You know, the ones they copy yet can't really make. Well they made some, but they aren't really stealth and weigh almost 2x ours so...
I agree, Mike. We CAN charge varying as you say. tariffs because of our markets.
I never doubted we could, just whether we should.
But perhaps I was wrong about Trump's approach.
European leaders have treated President Trump as though he is not the legitimate President of the United States because view him as an obstruction to their ambitions and agenda. The Nobel Prize situation is one glaring example of that.
Treating Trump this way is not just disrespectful of Trump. It's disrespectful of the people of the United States who elected him and one of the main reasons they elected him was to be an obstruction to the ambitions and agenda of Europe's leaders which are not in the interest of the United States nor in accordance with our fundamental values.
What would the EU be doing differently if it was openly allied with China?
Before the fights begin on the White House lawn, Dana White is going to present the president with a UFC heavyweight undisputed world champion belt with the Nobel Peace prize medallion as the centerpiece.
Yah, economies are disturbingly complex and the dismal science becomes more dismal when we can’t grunt and point and the cause but ya know tariffs are bad but not that bad, chopped into edible chunks, maker eats a few middleman ears a few retailer eats a few and maybe consumer has to take a bite or two but the lower energy costs wave slowly riffles through every aspect of the economy and the fear of government controlling the means of production kind of wanes and thus yes some of the makers take the invitation to makers set up in the US trickles into the data, so yah maybe the taxes aren’t so bad…
"I think we are now over $1,000,000,000 (trillion) in Taiwan invest in US semiconductor plants."
It was crazy stupid to have allowed that vulnerability to have evolved. Can't be remedied fast enough.
"Flood Minnesota with shit while Trump and the billionaires go for the Western Hemisphere riches.
And the Gullibles ork and clap."
I have never seen a more pure and perfect piece of online projection.
Just turn on the news, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, etc, etc, etc, all owned by billionaires and all in constant opposition to Trump. You just recite the same stuff that the major networks pump down your gullet every day, and then in infuriates you guys that Fox even exists to question the narratives all of the major networks with national reach preach.
Did you notice, Ronald J. Ward, mid-wit, that I put actual facts in my rebuttal to you? I didn't just post my opinion and then imagine "I showed him." It's how debate works.
What concerns me most about Trump is his obsession with trivial honors and awards. Against US tradition, he had the Kennedy Center renamed to include him, using the lie that it was an unanimous board decsion. Sitting politicans in a democracy shouldn't have government buildings named after them. That's for totalitarian leaders.
FIFA created a ludicrous Peace Prize to give to Trump and he accepted Machodo's Nobel Peace Prize. Both done to try to curry favor with him.
Now he's blaming the Norwegian government for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize even though they have no control over that - it's done be a separate institute. It's reminiscent
of China's boycott of Norway after Liu Xiaobo won the Peace Prize in 2010.
"In remarks to reporters, Starmer denounced economic coercion against allies as the wrong approach to resolving disagreements."
And jailing people for sharing opinions on social media is the RIGHT approach to resolving disagreements??
Three gorges dam is an ENORMOUS sword of damocles hanging over China.
If we or Taiwan can breach it in a war, it will make Hiroshima seem like a fart in a tornado.
Just look how many huge cities and industry is downstream.
In 1938 the kmt destroyed levees on the yellow river. 500,000 Chinese died.
John Henry
Wince, the beauty of that scene is that Jessup was right about the need for rough men to do violence on our behalf if we want to sleep soundly in our beds at night. But that wasn't the issue--the issue was whether Jessup ordered the code red, and he did.
So if you are trying to draw a parallel between Jessup's Wall speech and Trump's Greenland justification, then you also need to draw a parallel between the code red and tariffs.
I look forward to reading your effort.
I'm just here for the comments
"Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?" Bowing to Trump, acknowledging inferiority and dependence, is the ultimate humiliation. But Greenland doesn't help provide defense for them.
“The Danes don’t see us as humans . . . They think we’re too expensive" Slight contradiction there: they think you are too-expensive humans, which you are, esp considering that you produce next to nothing, and don't control the actual island beyond a few miserable villages.
In the larger scheme of things, what does it mean for 50K poor people in distant settlements with no capabilities of their own to have a "right" to or potential sovereignty over a massive island?
"Both done to try to curry favor with him."
Everybody operates on the assumption that he is a narcissist. It may be that he uses that, IDK, it may be that he is a narcissist, time will tell, but if he gets us out of NATO without having to get the approval of the neocon controlled Senate, that is a good thing, and part of the reason he was sent to DC by America First voters.
"Three gorges dam is an ENORMOUS sword of damocles hanging over China."
That's nuclear level escalation that I don't think would be wise to take.
"If we or Taiwan can breach it in a war, it will make Hiroshima seem like a fart in a tornado."
So will China's response.
Trump is fighting Danish imperialism. Who is defending that imperialism? Who is on the side of the imperialist colonizers of Denmark. Once the women were rendered infertile, they controlled the men by forced painting of portraits, and warm summer landscapes. It's brutality at a whole new level.
Got my floods confused. Yellow river flood was as bad as I mentioned.
Yangtze river flood of 31 was even worse. Perhaps as many as 3-mm dead. 200m drowned.
John Henry
That is, after deciding that we would rather have Greenland's glaciers than NATO allies fighting China with us.
What could the Europeans bring to the fight?
The Europeans are already wholly dependent on the US to protect them in their home countries from Russia. They have become reliant on Russian energy and are embroiled in the Ukraine situation. They are very vulnerable right now. They know it and Trump knows it. They can't and won't fight him very hard over Greenland because ultimately US control there is in their interest too.
Let me turn your proposition around. Russia is just waiting for Europe to get in a fight with the US. They might keep a glacier, but...
The same people having wet dreams about Taiwan crippling China, when the only reason that Taiwan has any autonomy is because the US performed an armed intervention in China's civil war, get bent out of shape that Russia intervened in a civil war on its border, that the US started and armed the other side.
It's like people can't take a step back and think about anything. You need to lay off the crack piper, err, I mean Instapundit and open a history book or two. But that's impossible because the Germans discovered that the laws of group dynamics show that democracies can be manipulated into whatever the elites want out of them, and people feel empowered by the very manipulations.
It's like that movie "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer." Propaganda can perfume any goal, no matter how nefarious.
Original Mike, it would be a horrible idea. Worse than nuclear.
But is it a risk the Chinese are willing to take. Just how cray-cray is trump, really? Are they willing to bet the country on it?
That's the value to being unpredictable.
And what about Taiwan? If the get their backs to the wall, would they do it to save their country?
It would not require nukes, either. Conventional explosives could do it. Harder but possible
John Henry
"But is it a risk the Chinese are willing to take."
I understand.
"And what about Taiwan? If the get their backs to the wall, would they do it to save their country?
It would not require nukes, either. Conventional explosives could do it. Harder but possible"
Does Taiwan have the means to deliver them?
Jaq
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks
John Henry
"But is it a risk the Chinese are willing to take."
The militarization of Taiwan is an existential threat to China. So yes, backed into a corner, they will take that risk. It is foolish to imagine otherwise. Just like Russia risked the sanctions and war to prevent NATO from putting nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and cutting it off from the Black Sea.
If Taiwan did such a thing, it would be an existential miscalculation.
"Conventional explosives could do it. Harder but possible"
No, they would use tactical nukes and count on dilution to cover the evidence, to reduce the residual radiation to background. There are people who say that Ukraine and Britain already did this to a dam in Ukraine, but of course it's impossible to prove, and the Ukrainians had been shelling a raceway for some time, then when the dam failed, they blamed the Russians for blowing up their own dam, and cutting off agricultural water to their own territory of Crimea.
"The militarization of Taiwan is an existential threat to China."
Whose hitting the crack pipe?
What concerns me most about Trump is his obsession with trivial honors and awards.
Given the shitshow the last president was this complaint reveals that some people just don't realize how good things are if your biggest concern is that the president enjoys trivial gifts.
It could be so much worse: Imagine, what if he sought huge monetary gifts, like from Moscow and Beihing, the way the last admin did? Or other non-trivial honors?
Mike,
That is 2 questions:
It is 750-800 miles from Taiwan to 3 Gorges so I suspect the Taiwanese have planes that could carry the mail.
The real question would be air defenses. Could they get through? I don't know what either side has so don't know. And I don't know how much each side has. Do the Chinese have more defense missiles than Taiwan has attack planes and bombs? Or vice versa? How good are defenses and Taiwan penetration?
John Henry
@John Henry
"But perhaps I was wrong about Trump's approach"
I can't count the the number of times I've wondered "what the hell is he thinking" only to see it work out to advantage 6 mo to a year later. The constant barrage of "his instincts are phenomenal" comments from business leaders and associates bolster my confidence in him somewhat but I still flinch from time to time. I've said it a million times. High risk, high reward. But I'm beginning to think that using common sense in our best interests has been so rare of late it only seems revolutionary. Our ownership of Greenland rather than relying on the whims of a tiny European country seems like common sense to me. How he goes about it makes me flinch. Im not privy to the inner workings.. We'll see.
Of note: We've got low inflation, rising wages, and increasing GDP.
America First. What an concept!
Jaq @ 8:55
"Flood Minnesota with shit while Trump and the billionaires go for the Western Hemisphere riches.
And the Gullibles ork and clap."
I have never seen a more pure and perfect piece of online projection.
Just turn on the news, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, etc, etc, etc, all owned by billionaires and all in constant opposition to Trump. You just recite the same stuff that the major networks pump down your gullet every day, and then in infuriates you guys that Fox even exists to question the narratives all of the major networks with national reach preach.”
Jaq @ 8:57
“Did you notice, Ronald J. Ward, mid-wit, that I put actual facts in my rebuttal to you? I didn't just post my opinion and then imagine "I showed him." It's how debate works.”
Ahem, a bit of a specious argument that media billionaires must be included for a cut don’t ya think?
I’ve argued since Trump’s election victory of what to expect- for him to utilize Steve Bannon’s admitted strategy to “flood the zone with shit” to fulfill their objectives, particularly transferring mass wealth and implementing Project 2025. I do have to admit, I never imagined a heist of this magnitude with such support.
What we’re seeing in Minnesota is straight out of the Project 2025 playbook and it clearly delivers the chaos needed.
Only the most gullible of the goobers or most politically ignorant or those profoundly engulfed in a cult would still seriously believe that these attacks on Democratic cities are about fraud or removing the worse of the worse. Only they would still believe that taking over Venezuela was ever about drugs. And if you want to have an argument solely on Greenland, the entire security argument collapses.
What’s remarkable is that just a few weeks ago, taking over Greenland was generally met with eye rolls and now suddenly, the goobers are defending it. Come to think about it, we saw this same movie version on Venezuela and overrunning American cities- until Trump snapped his finger.
"Whose hitting the crack pipe?"
So if the US military puts air and naval bases in Taiwan, that is not an existential threat to China? Imperial Japan first wrested "Formosa" away from China, and used it as a springboard for an invasion of the mainland that cost tens of millions of Chinese lives. The US could enforce a blockade of China, the threat of which could force the Chinese to capitulate to US demands.
This is the real reason that we intervened in China's civil war, and prevented them from taking back the island that they had held since the Middle Ages, when they first put military there in response to the depredations of Western armed sailing ships.
If Hitler had managed to take Britain, could the US have carried out D-Day?
You really should open a history book or two. History is fascinating, and history may not repeat, but dynamics do, and the fundamental truths apply, as time goes by.
The Brits attacked dams in the Ruhr Valley in 1943, breaching 3-4 of them. Good movie with Michael Redgrave available on Netflix. Better book. "The Dam Busters"
One of the things that always amazed me was how small the bombs were Not much bigger than a 55 gallon drum. The trick was getting them at the right location behind the dam.
They did this by spinning the bomb so it would bounce over the protective nets and then spin itself down the waterside face of the dam before going off at the bottom, where there is greatest stress.
Technology has evolved, 3 Gorges is much bigger, under more stress, bombs are more powerful.
John Henry
"Ahem, a bit of a specious argument that media billionaires must be included for a cut don’t ya think?"
Still the mid with provides only more MSM and NPR tropes, no actual facts. I factually pointed out that the vast bulk of our media opposes Trump at every turn, and the takeaway is that "the billionaires" are not lined up behind Trump in some untied fashion, since they control the media, that is almost uniformly anti-Trump.
"So if the US military puts air and naval bases in Taiwan, …"
And why would we do that?
You have an inability to sort out cause and effect.
A submarine drone armed with a tactical nuke will do the job, and leave no trace.
"And why would we do that?"
Hopefully we won't, but if we do, this will trigger an invasion by China because it would be an existential threat. It's fun to imagine that the other side is evil and that is the only explanation that we need for their actions, and that the US is good, How may overseas wars has China fought since their revolution, and how many overseas wars have we fought?
After a while, one might come to the conclusion that we aren't just stumbling into these wars, one after the other, out of "just trying to do right and protect the people in these countries we are invading."
But why use a nuke if not needed, Jaq?
It just adds another potential layer of political complication.
John Henry
The presidency does this to people. Look what happened to GW Bush's "more modest foreign policy." Those of us who aren't commander in chief and don't have all the weapons at our disposal have to keep our heads and not get drawn in.
If a chess player wants to gain control over a square, for strategic reasons, he doesn't have to claim that the current owner of that square is evil, but that's how it works in geostragy when democracies are playing the game.
"Hopefully we won't, but if we do, this will trigger an invasion by China because it would be an existential threat."
IOW, you got your tenses wrong with "The militarization of Taiwan is an existential threat to China."
Like I said, you can't sort out cause and effect.
We are uncomfortable with Trump's transparency. Trump says exactly what he's thinking unless it gives away strategy points. Everything in Trump message is true. Nobody else would be that honest, but Trump is fearless. We know that others would have similar feelings or motivations. They just would never admit it. They would lie. Maybe some prefer that. I don't. Sometimes I prefer silence, but if you are going to say something, tell them what you think, not some word salad of meaningless drivel.
"But why use a nuke if not needed, Jaq?"
So the plan is to blame it on poor Chinese engineering, so that any retaliation by China can be characterized as aggression over a Chinese false flag?
You are beginning to see how the game is played. I just wish people were more open about it. You want to complete the long term conquest of Taiwan that started with the Imperial Japanese, for strategic reasons, why not just admit it? For the same reason that the Democrats can't admit their reasoning behind bringing in millions of immigrants, to drive down wages, and solidify their power.
"Like I said, you can't sort out cause and effect."
Cause: US wants to force China to submit to the US as global ruler.
Effect: US militarizes the island of Taiwan in order to force Chinese submission.
I think I have it exactly right.
"Cause: US wants to force China to submit to the US as global ruler."
Sure, Tim, sure.
You can't see the great game that is being played because you have adopted a rooting interest and staked your personal identity to it, and the group pursuing the interests of one side of the game, and part of that identity, is to imagine that the other side is evil, but weak and vulnerable, so it is taboo to consider that China may have perfectly understandable reasons for opposing the turning of Taiwan into a US unsinkable aircraft carrier.
"Sure, Tim, sure."
How many wars will it take for you? How many wars will the US need to fight on the far side of the globe before you ask yourself if there is more too it than just "do gooding," that maybe the US isn't really the world's Dudley Doright?
The funniest thing about it is the way the neocons have conned Democrats into believing it, because Trump opposes some of these wars they want to fight so badly.
Just weeks ago this idea was treated as satire. Nothing material has changed since then—Greenland’s geography, resources, population, and legal status are exactly the same. What has changed is the narrative framing.
The U.S. already has full military access, intelligence presence, and treaty cooperation there. Strategic interests in the Arctic are real, but they’ve been managed for decades without sovereignty or coercion. Supporting a “takeover” now isn’t realism—it’s post-hoc justification to stay aligned with a preferred narrative.
The only thing left is the rare earths, minerals and potential oil which extraction is largely constrained by Greenland’s own environmental politics.
The heist under a false premise is blaring, just like Venezuela.
If self-determination still matters, it’s worth noting Greenlanders themselves overwhelmingly oppose the idea.
"Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?"
Why do we need it given Greenland is part of NATO? No one seems to be able to answer this question.
Did Starmer remove the clown nose before he made his statement?
No?
Well, there.
The funny thing about Venezuela is that Trump went in and extracted Maduro, and one could imagine that he did it to prevent a regime change, not to carry one out, and that is why neocons are kind of mad at him. The globalists didn't get a chance to put their puppet in place in the last country in the Americas not a member of the globalist, climate catastrophe posing, gender ideology pushing, Organization of American States.
Europe is now threatening a trade war over Greenland. I understand why Trump wants Greenland. It's strategic and makes sense in the big picture. It helps prevent a nuclear world war (kind of important).
What is the justification for Europe doing so much damage to us, themselves and the world with a trade war rather than just making a deal for Greenland. The Danish rights to it are silly at this point. They can't defend it, and they never did anything to develop it. Is this really worth it? I get not wanting to give into Trump's bravado (he doesn't make it easy), but not by destroying your own economy.
A simple cost/benefit analysis says swallow your pride and give Trump what he wants and you need. He did ask nicely at the beginning. Go back to that.
Jaq said...
How many wars will it take for you? How many wars will the US need to fight on the far side of the globe before you ask yourself if there is more too it than just "do gooding,"
We crossed that line for me in 1914 when Wilson decided to get us into WWI. We didn't get in til 17 but the decision was made earlier.
Maybe even in 1898 getting into war with Spain. It was about Cuba, in our back yard, where a war had been causing us problems for a while. So within our purview.
Did we really need to battle them over the Philipines, though? Once we did, we probably needed to be involved in the PI on the "We broke it, we bought it" theory. But the Spanish war was really the first of the overseas wars for us.
John Henry
the EU would prefer the Ayatollah take over Greenland. Or perhaps that idiot Greta Thongberg.
"and one could imagine that"
One can imagine a lot of things. That doesn't make them so.
"Why do we need it given Greenland is part of NATO? No one seems to be able to answer this question"
Given the changes taking place in Europe can rely on NATO into the future? Wouldn't the US in control of Greenland's strategic position be a safer bet?
Trump should focus on Greenland residents, not Denmark. Offer them each a pot full of money.
Regarding Denmark’s ability to defend Greenland, it should be noted that in 1940 the Danish government capitulated to Germany less than six hours after the Wehrmacht crossed the border.
"One can imagine a lot of things. That doesn't make them so."
It just fits a pattern, like Trump hitting Iran's nuclear enrichment program to forestall a regime change. The fact remains that there has been no regime change in Iran, and no regime change in Venezuela. So you can ask yourself why this is, or not.
Original Mike said...
Trump should focus on Greenland residents, not Denmark. Offer them each a pot full of money.
There is a longer game here.
Europe is in desperate need of Regime Change.
"So you can ask yourself why this is, or not."
Ahh, cuz the regime is killing the opposition?
Seriously Tim, the more fanciful the explanation the more you glom onto it.
Tough f*cking nuts UK and EU... Trump is Trump... either make a deal with him or suffer what you suffer.
jim5301 said...
"Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?"
Why do we need it given Greenland is part of NATO? No one seems to be able to answer this question.
Europe has not acted like an ally ever.
They act like Somalians in Minnesota.
European countries don’t deserve to be treated like allies. They should be treated like defeated enemies who are occupied.
Britain was once our ally.
It might be again when Starmer is removed from power.
jim5301 said...
Why do we need it given Greenland is part of NATO? No one seems to be able to answer this question
Because your premise is wrong. Greenland, unlike Iceland, is not "part of" NATO. Our obligation to Greenland is via a 1951 agreement with the Danish government to defend it. The status of that agreement should Greenland exercise its right to declare independence, as granted by the Danes in 2009, is uncertain. Iceland became a member of NATO only after considerable unrest and demands to become unaligned.
"Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?"
My first conclusion would be that Trump's personality is the reason. They just can't face giving into him, but we tried many times in the past and they also refused other Presidents they liked.
The singer Bjork, a native of Iceland, has long slammed distant Scandinavian ownership over many north Atlantic islands. She doesn't want Trump/USA ownership either.
The trouble is that the entire region is very close to Russia and Russia claimed the North Pole by planting a flag and dropping a metal capsule from a submarine (2007).
In a Great Powers conflict, all small countries will be forced to take a side. If the militarily passive and lazy EU becomes a great power once again, they might defend their small member states. If not, China or Russia or the USA will become the de facto owner.
“Not getting the Nobel Peace Prize means I’m done caring only about peace.” ` Donald Trump
One of the dumbest, most petulant statements ever issued by a U.S. president.
Stop whining.
OTOH -- totally on brand.....
Trump whining about the Nobel really means: You pricks have done everything you can for 10 years to exclude me and my ideas from polite company. Yet you expect me to behave like I’m part of your polite company!? Nonono, that’s not how it works. Try treating me slightly better than you treat the muzzie boat people. Then we might be able to talk. CC, JSM
“Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?”
I was getting all agitated yesterday, watching the interview, like I was in Minnesota or something. Why can’t the European governments see the fucking obvious. You don’t wait until you’re falling down a cliff to start thinking about how not to fall down a cliff.
Its a participation trophy
’Regarding Denmark’s ability to defend Greenland, it should be noted that in 1940 the Danish government capitulated to Germany less than six hours after the Wehrmacht crossed the border.’
It’s tough to beat France at the surrender game, but they did it.
Danish royals were kind of brave though
"Seriously Tim, the more fanciful the explanation the more you glom onto it."
Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbegniev Brzezinski, you know, Mika's dad, wrote a whole book on it, called "The Grand Chessboard," and you know what? The strategy he laid out has been followed, up to, and including using Ukraine to create regime change in Russia, and break it up into more manageable countries, whose leaders would be easy to bribe, and fantastically rich in resources, which would then be denied to China, oh by the way, as well as denying China their one formidable ally.
Fanciful idees, but guess what, those fanciful ideas sell a lot of weapons.
Give me Greenland or give me Nobel
Thank you for attending this matter
DJ T
2 slightly related comments:
Currently halfway through Alan Furst's "The Polish Officer which mainly deals with the German/Russian invasion of Poland and then of France. (Thanks a lot, as in curse you, whoever suggested Alan Furst a week or so ago. This is my 3rd book since then. Can't put them down. Am I cursed to read all 13 non-stop?)
There was a big contrast between the 2 countries and their reactions. The Poles resisted vigorously and continued to resist even after surrender. Of course the German plan was to exterminate most of the Poles and Polish culture and just keep a few as subjugated slaves (6mm Poles murdered in the camps, 50-50 Jew christian) so they had nothing to lose.
The French didn't fight much and figured, it's just our neighbors coming for a visit. But they did not have as much skin in the game as the Poles. A lot of the book takes place in France.
Second, Finland is sort of Scandaninavian depending on the the day of the week. In 1940 Stalin tried to invade on the grounds that they were sorta/kinda historically part of Russia. He pretty well got his ass handed to him until the Finns ran out of people and arms.
John Henry
Yes he really does bring his all
Brezinski talking of chessboards kind of amusing
Starmer may be right for a change. However, staying in the good graces of failing European nations seems less important now. Trump could seek stronger alliances with Poland, Japan, S. Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, etc.
“Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?”
Occam's Razor: Because they know they can keep it AND the U.S. will still defend them.
"In remarks to reporters, Starmer denounced economic coercion against allies as the wrong approach to resolving disagreements.
Kier has had 12,000 people harassed by UK police in just he last year for "posting bad things to social media".
He has no fucking clue what the "right approach" is to solving any problem, and needs to just STFU
"Europe is now threatening a trade war over Greenland."
You just need ECB to add a say 10% risk weight to US treasuries in the Solvency II rules and that will be enough to rattle the treasury market.
In fact, you just need to have a draft leaked that this is being looked at and the market would puke.
"Brezinski talking of chessboards kind of amusing"
And yet, he called the wars that followed, the ones we just bumbled into out of good intentions.
Sewards' Icebox... Trump's .[...]
I got nothing.
Easy to sum up. That’s Trump’s way of saying “That’s cute” to the Euro leadership. We’ll have Greenland as some sort of protectorate within 90 days…
"In fact, you just need to have a draft leaked that this is being looked at and the market would puke."
If KakBot had legs he would step on a rake every single day and never pick it up.
Kakistocracy said...
"Europe is now threatening a trade war over Greenland."
You just need ECB to add a say 10% risk weight to US treasuries in the Solvency II rules and that will be enough to rattle the treasury market.
In fact, you just need to have a draft leaked that this is being looked at and the market would puke.
Wow you are a stupid person.
Nobody gives a shit what Europe does with their treasuries.
If they do something stupid like try to sell them then people just get to buy discounted treasuries.
Europe is a nothing. A Meh. Everyone knows that the EU and the regimes current;y in power in Europe will fall soon.
He is side show bob
F**k it! Now I'm going for the Nobel War Prize!
Lonejustice is an idiot... Strike the remainder.
"Leaders of Denmark and Greenland have said repeatedly that they welcome deeper U.S. economic and security involvement, but that the vast island territory — which Trump covets for its strategic Arctic location and natural resources — is not for sale."
Denmark, Greenland, the EU want the illusion of being in control, self sufficient and definitely superior to the US. But thanks to previous US administrations Greenland and Europe also expect the US to protect them without even having to pay for it. I can understand why Trump doesn't like that arrangement.
The fact that France, the UK and Spain all decided to recognize state of Palestine while the war in Gaza was still taking place was also an insult to the US and Trump's diplomatic efforts and international norms of statehood.
And finally there's the refusal to acknowledge Trump's efforts to end so many conflicts around the world. Refusing to recognize Trump with the Nobel Prize is just one more gesture of contempt. Why should Trump operate with kid gloves with people who are so rude to him?
We have military arrangements with countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, literally built on sand, but at least Qatar has paid for their protection. If Qatar changes its mind at some future date, so be it. At least we didn't spend billions building their facilities. Has Greenland or Denmark said anything about investing billions on their defense? I haven't heard it, just their pathetic welcoming our spending our money to defend them.
I think the US has been burned enough in our investments in the security of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, for Trump to be clear how fickle those alliances can be and to want to own Greenland if at all possible. There is no question of the strategic importance of Greenland, just the arrangements.
What concerns me most about Trump is his obsession with trivial honors and awards.
If that's your biggest concern, he must be doing a helluva job on everything else.
jaq @ 9:57 AM,
Wow, you don't even know what cause and effect IS.
(Hint: the thing you label 'cause' is actually 'motive')
“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway?”
By that logic, if violent criminals break into the home of an elderly person who isn’t physically capable of stopping them, then the criminals have a right to own the home! No, that’s ridiculous.
If Greenland and Denmark alone wouldn’t be able to repel an invasion by a larger country, that isn’t a reason for the US to acquire Greenland. We can give them military assistance without buying them and taking on that huge liability at taxpayers’ expense.
“There are no written documents”
But there is a written document that says the people of Greenland have a right to independence from Denmark, and they’ve chosen not to exercise that right. So raising vague doubts about Denmark’s ownership of Greenland isn’t a good argument.
Trump’s fans might see him as strong, but he sure loves weak arguments.
Yo Kak/Richsockpuppet/paidActbluetroll:
Nothing to say on half of Starmer's cabinet being in the Epstein files?
Whatever happened to your "Let the chips fall where they may."
Well...?
Oh i get it!
You only speak in animal chips!
Silly me!
"By that logic, if violent criminals break into the home of an elderly person who isn’t physically capable of stopping them, then the criminals have a right to own the home! No, that’s ridiculous."
If the landlord cannot protect the elderly from the criminals, a stronger landlord is needed.
The whole Greenland situation is a mess. Trump's blunt approach, demanding complete control over Greenland, feels like a step too far. I wonder if Europe’s reluctance stems from a deeper distrust in America's security rationale. Shouldn’t NATO’s strength be based on cooperation rather than coercion? Forest Hill doctors could probably offer some advice on how to heal relationships too, metaphorically speaking.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.