461–470 of 660 posts
Of course they were. The United States has never before damaged its own reputation in Europe as much as they did in the last 12 months. And the same goes for Canada, possibly worse. You don't go around threatening your allies unless you really have plans and that's why you don't elect senile old guys to positions of power.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that incredibly circular definition, laws don't exist. All it takes is ignoring them and then they disappear! That's obviously not how things work. If you don't obey the law, you are a criminal . That's the whole point of laws.
That's exactly correct. Laws are not a physical entity and therefore their existence is predicated entirely on collective agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't matter. It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that. It is about gross miscalculation of consequences. Attack Greenland ->attack Denmark, attack Denmark -> Attack the EU. So you don't attack Greenland. Because that would be wrong. Unless all that stuff about shining cities on hills was nonsense. Instead of making America gre…
>It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that. Um, lots of us have doubts about that. The USA couldn't win against Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; why do you think it could win against Greenland? Greenlanders actually have a lot of guns; and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA.
Canada and the US share border and almost all meaningful infra of Canada is located in that thin border area. The US can obliterate much of Canada with artillery, various types of missiles, bombs etc. etc. Canada has nothing to counter it with. So no, I doubt Canada is that suicidal (I am Canadian btw).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way the US can fix our reputation will be to try and imprison our current leadership after they are eventually removed from power. And in particular, the Trump family needs to have all of its assets seized.
On what principle would the Trump family's assets be seized? Just to pre-empt the idea that he corruptly became rich in office, that is actually fairly usual for US presidents to become suspiciously wealthy after their time in office [0, 1]. That's never been a reason to start talking about asset seizure. Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is Obama whether you like him or not was the last traditional post War American President. Biden copied Trumps extremist way of Government. Biden said (totally abnormal comments for a president) "we've been patient with the unvaccinated, but our patience is wearing thin" highly aggressive comments. Trump is basically using that same language with illegal immigrants and Americans critical of Israel and the I…
> highly aggressive comments. Trump is basically using that same language with illegal immigrants and Americans critical of Israel and the Iran war. You're equating a _statement_ made by Biden (with regards to a public health crisis actively killing Americans) with Trump arresting US citizens, illegally deporting asylum-seekers, and bombing Iran without congressional approval, a plan for the strait of Hormuz, nor buy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's why you don't elect senile old guys to positions of power. Anyone of principle would have been saying this before 2025, and far louder.
Note that this is from a country that wouldn't exist if not for the allied countries and that the US has somehow managed to all but erase that reputation. We recognize our debt, we also recognize that this is to a country that no longer exists in a meaningful way. All we have now is multiple variations of the mob.
Do Americans support this violent annexation and expansion? As a European I'm feeling threatened. Very few countries have Atom Bombs and can say NO to the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that. Um, lots of us have doubts about that. The USA couldn't win against Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; why do you think it could win against Greenland? Greenlanders actually have a lot of guns; and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA.
>"and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA." Canada and the US share border and almost all meaningful infra of Canada is located in that thin border area. The US can obliterate much of Canada with artillery, various types of missiles, bombs etc. etc. Canada has nothing to counter it with. So no, I doubt Canada is that suicidal (I am Canadian btw).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't obeyed or enforced and, therefore, is not the law. I won't read it as there is no point in doing so because it is not the law.
By that incredibly circular definition, laws don't exist. All it takes is ignoring them and then they disappear! That's obviously not how things work. If you don't obey the law, you are a criminal . That's the whole point of laws.