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

Greenland Crisis

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Greenland Crisis

#81

Post by tim333 »

adventured wrote: post #50
tim333 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security. I think the US may just remain secure without owning Greenland. I mean it's done ok so far.

How about if China buys Greenland or otherwise acquires a massive port on Greenland. Maybe China builds one of the world's largest military bases on Greenland with a century deal. China is going to end up being every bit as powerful as the US ever was, both economically and militarily. Nothing will be off the table in what's coming. Russia has never had a true global projection navy, China will have a navy that is pl…

What if China builds a port in Canada? Does that mean the US has to invade?

In practice Greenland and Denmark have been quite sensitive to these things are unlikely to open a Chinese naval base. Which is one of the things that's sad about this - why attack one of your most faithful allies and wreck NATO in a way that horries most of the democratic world and delights Moscow? Not really the US's finest hour.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#83

Post by tim333 »

oliwarner wrote: post #74
tim333 wrote: post #46

It's strange how Trump wants to be pally with Russia but attack America's closest allies like Canada and Denmark.

The generous explanation is that Russia could be a cheap mineral supplier. That a destabilised West strengthens the offerings of US to its neighbours. That domestic xenophobia forces domestic hiring, manufacturing, job creation. But historically, he apes Putin's strongman routine. He wants to be him. Bibi too. Too powerful to be prosecuted. He's got a few years left, doesn't give a shit, and knows he can strip mine t…

Thinking about it he's probably guilty of a few offences along the sex offence, corruption and money laundering lines so he's probably biased to folk that help him out and don't worry about that like Russia, and against those who police such things.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#84

Post by watwut »

telotortium wrote: post #19
watwut wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republican congressman uniformly support Trump and his agenda. He has full support of republican party. So do senate and so do republican supreme court justices. They stand up for this.

The Wikipedia article mentions a bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen in support of Denmark. Maybe they took along Republicans that have been a bee in the Trump administration’s bonnet, but it’s definitely not fair to say they uniformly support his agenda, only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.

Republican congressman vote in support of Trump and his agenda with super rare exceptions. Most of the time, they all vote to support him. It is completely fair to say that.

> only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.

This literally counts as "uniformly supporting Trump". Nothing less. They are all in for Trump agenda. It is straightforwardly absurd to claim that this somehow represents someone against that agenda. And no, "I do it only because I prefer this over voting with people who are against it" does not changes anything on it.

If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump. And no, it is not as if they had to make some ideological or ethical sacrifice by voting with Democrats here. They cant do it simply because they support Trump.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#85

Post by incomingpain »

lumost wrote: post #79
incomingpain wrote: post #75

[flagged]

Why is the USA forced to invade Canada?

>Why is the USA forced to invade Canada?

If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#86

Post by yencabulator »

nozzlegear wrote: post #38
giacomoforte wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans famously don't respect native peoples and their lands.

Tbf I think you could say this for almost any European country as well.

Greenland can vote for independence any moment they want. How are you treating Hawaii?

Re: Greenland Crisis

#87

Post by yencabulator »

ianburrell wrote: post #26
t1234s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fair question. Greenland appears to be a very harsh place to live. Younger generations may not want to deal with that and go live in Europe.

Since Greenland is part of Denmark, Greenlanders are free to move to Denmark. There are 16k or so, but can't tell how many are Greenlandic or Danish heritage.

Greenlanders are EU citizens and can move quite freely in Europe, not just Denmark.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#88

Post by weirdmantis69 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #80

I kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds. >Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8…

What do you think selling US bonds will do? Because selling US bonds is good for the US actually.

Re: Greenland Crisis

#89

Post by nozzlegear »

yencabulator wrote: post #86
nozzlegear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbf I think you could say this for almost any European country as well.

Greenland can vote for independence any moment they want. How are you treating Hawaii?

I was speaking more to Europe's whole history as colonizers and slavers.

> How are you treating Hawaii

Hawaiians are Americans, so we treat them fine I guess?

Re: Greenland Crisis

#90

Post by telotortium »

watwut wrote: post #84
telotortium wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article mentions a bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen in support of Denmark. Maybe they took along Republicans that have been a bee in the Trump administration’s bonnet, but it’s definitely not fair to say they uniformly support his agenda, only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.

Republican congressman vote in support of Trump and his agenda with super rare exceptions. Most of the time, they all vote to support him. It is completely fair to say that. > only that they would rather support him than the Democrats. This literally counts as "uniformly supporting Trump". Nothing less. They are all in for Trump agenda. It is straightforwardly absurd to claim that this somehow represents someone agai…

> If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump.

Okay, but I can just as easily say that you are pro-crime because you share a coalition with progressives that get district attorneys like Chesa Boudin elected (just this week the newly-elected Democratic state legislature in Virginia introduced bills to reduce the penalties for burglary, a violent crime - no normal person was asking for this).

You have a point that anyone in a coalition supports the most extreme actions of that coalition, but if you can’t make any distinction between the intents of different actors in the coalition, the only option becomes total defeat of the other side. But that is difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with a near 50-50 party split like we have in the US today. Even when the US decisively defeated the Confederacy, there were still a lot of people that either sympathized with the South or at least thought an indefinite military occupation of the South wasn’t worth it (like the US tired of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan), which is why Reconstruction ended.

So counting on total defeat of the other side is a fool’s errand, unless one side or the other executes a coup, which sadly is looking more and more likely. Trump supporters argue that the Democrats and their sympathizers in the Republican Party performed a soft coup during Covid and the 2020 election, which is why Trump has taken care to surround himself with loyalists this time around.

Post reply on HN