Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#31

Post by aguaviva »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #29
aguaviva wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Invaded" implies a hostile, or at least forceful takeover. That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II

Ok, they "occupied" Greenland if you prefer although if they didn't have Copenhagen's greenlight it was an invasion. But that's largely semantics and does not address the general point and the fact that the US's interest in Greenland is not new despite Trump being Trump and they were keen to keep it. Even at the time it was not new.

[dead]

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#32

Post by tim333 »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #30
tim333 wrote: post #20

While I dislike the term "fake news" this is a typical example of a lefty mainstream source distorting what Trump said to make him look bad and then declining to link to the original source so as to make it hard to catch them out. Here's what he actually said https://youtu.be/K0EaHawPM2g As an aside I think the whole strategy is past its best by date. People are wise to it and still elected Trump despite the best eff…

It's hard to be charitable to that comment: it's just pollution. Here's a full transcript of the linked video: Reporter: Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion? Trump: No. I can't assure you - you're talking about Panama and Greenland - no, I can't assure you on either of those two, but I can say this: we need them for economic sec…

Ah - I missed the "either of those two."

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#33

Post by thomassmith65 »

tim333 wrote: post #32
thomassmith65 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to be charitable to that comment: it's just pollution. Here's a full transcript of the linked video: Reporter: Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion? Trump: No. I can't assure you - you're talking about Panama and Greenland - no, I can't assure you on either of those two, but I can say this: we need them for economic sec…

Ah - I missed the "either of those two."

To be fair to you, three out of four presidents this century have been generally incoherent public speakers.

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#34

Post by seszett »

SavageBeast wrote: post #18
legitster wrote: post #11

> Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada. But here’s the problem with Canada. So many friends up there, I love the Canadian people. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to protect it. We’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits. Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his min…

The Danish government is and has been well under their 2% NATO commitment. I can see a case where in the face of the requirement being moved up from 2%, Denmark may need the money. Lets not forget about the 57K people in Greenland who would love some mailbox money for letting the US exploit their natural resources. The way I see this happening is that the people of Greenland are sold on the idea and the Danish govt.…

> The way I see this happening is that the people of Greenland are sold on the idea

Since the first time Trump mentioned buying Greenland though, public opinion in Greenland has largely changed in favour of joining the EU instead (while they previously chose not to be part of the EU). It's at 60% in favour now.

So I don't really see this happening.

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#35

Post by IAmGraydon »

jakeinspace wrote: post #27
legitster wrote: post #11

> Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada. But here’s the problem with Canada. So many friends up there, I love the Canadian people. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to protect it. We’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits. Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his min…

If someone makes off-hand threats to another while brandishing a gun, that’s illegal (assault) and condemnable. The (soon) president of the US wields nuclear weapons and the most powerful military on earth, his words by default cary the threat of violence. The difference between this and an asshole with a gun is that nobody stands above a president, at least between elections. He has impunity, but he does at least me…

Having a gun in your top drawer of your bedside table is not the same thing as holding it in your hand and pointing it at someone. Your analogy is a massive stretch, to say the least.

Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal

#36

Post by jakeinspace »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #35
jakeinspace wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone makes off-hand threats to another while brandishing a gun, that’s illegal (assault) and condemnable. The (soon) president of the US wields nuclear weapons and the most powerful military on earth, his words by default cary the threat of violence. The difference between this and an asshole with a gun is that nobody stands above a president, at least between elections. He has impunity, but he does at least me…

Having a gun in your top drawer of your bedside table is not the same thing as holding it in your hand and pointing it at someone. Your analogy is a massive stretch, to say the least.

Sure, I guess he wasn’t waving the nuclear football around, but give him time. He does have a flair for the dramatic and ridiculous.
Post reply on HN