I am in favor of a peaceable transaction to acquire Greenland, if one can be made.
The one quibble I have about colonialism and “ownership” is that everything I’ve read is that the current Inuit residents actually arrived on Greenland after the Norse, and if Denmark is the rightful inheritor of the Viking claims, they have a longer history than anyone else. Sort of like the British in the Falklands.
Not that I expect the argument of “white people were indigenous and the Native Americans the colonizers ackshually” to hold even a drop of water in 2026, but my understanding is it is factually accurate. Accordingly, I have no trouble recognizing Denmark as both the legal and rightful owner of the territory. As I said though, a transaction could and should be made if possible.
Just as "authenticity" is a load of crap because we are our choices, the idea of "it's ours cause we're there" is a load. Real estate's been trading hands since Thak hit Grogg with a tree branch and triumphantly grunted, "Mine now!"
Isn't possession, and the defence of said possession, 9/10ths of the law?
I kid. I kid.
But isn't America ours because we are here and can defend it?
Isn't Ukraine pretty much going to lose land because it can't defend it?
I see all the time about how America and the West were colonizers were bad so it's ok to either have illegals here since the land isn't ours or bring in legals so they can vote out the "westerners" which of course is just another form of colonization.
I get it, it appears Greenland shouldn't be in the same conversation as illegal aliens, but it all falls under the same discussion of borders, nation building, and colonization.
Your stuff is yours if you can defend it. While we've delegated that task to a powerful monster we call The Law, the fact remains there's always a Thak out there with a tree branch.
Who needs an attitude adjustment or an education in Shoot Shovel Shutup if he fails to take the hint.
1. Well that's it though right, what is "the law" in this situation? International? The enforcement of that law has been such a joke it's meaningless.
2. Thak with a tree branch (assuming we are talking about a big bully nation) is no different than other nations directly and indirectly subverting the local laws and will of the people of another.
Manmade Law is defined by whoever got the higher ground and wants to maintain the position.
Manmade Law only works if the most powerful nations lead by example and thus enforce it's rules as well. However, I'm not that convinced that the US has been the greatest at either of this.
The international courts, the international police, and international military can enforce it! To this day, george bush is sitting in an international prison for war crimes. That's why you never see him anymore
If you want American military bases in Greenland, that could have been done with a phone call. You do know that we had over a dozen bases there during the Cold War, don't you? And that Denmark has been a stalwart US ally, contributing more troop casualties as a proportion of population than any other nation in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars? That goodwill has now been squandered. The US plus Greenland minus NATO would be in a far more precarious defensive position, after we squander our reputation to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
The terms of that agreement were written in 1951. Back when Russia was the only threat and in the shadow of WW2. They do not cover the things that we need now.
Theyre also forward bases for us. While Russiia is tied down in Ukraine, and Iran is on the back foot were free to sort out VZ and for that matter Iran. Allies are useful. If theyre freeloaders its because we let them be.
It’s probably useless to mention this, but the only time Article 5 of the NATO Treaty has ever been invoked was after 9/11. The Danes fought with us in Afghanistan and sustained significant losses.
It’s probably also useless to remind people that the reason the US can project power in the Middle East is because of bases on European soil. A continued American presence on those bases is not carved in stone.
It's partially our fault Europe's been overrun by medieval savages.
We needed basing rights on The Continent to keep the Soviets from getting cute, so we ponied up the defense costs of a dozen countries that could then waste their money on Kumbaya socialism and suicidal nonsense like, "Those people aren't dangerous! They just want freedom!"
So they let Ahmed into their time machine and dragged his ass into the 20th century. Once he stopped squinting at the crystal spires and togas, he realized if he could convince these idiotic future people to go get his cousins, they could just TAKE what they wanted.
This only proves that Denmark has always groveled at our feet, culminating in giving up much of their military (save for two dog sleds) to the Ukraine and claiming they might otherwise be attached by Russia.
In the foreseeable future, China will be interested in Europe solely from a touristic perspective. Europe may aspire to change masters at some point, but it will have little to offer.
China only wants Europe to have a place to dump their products. They need consumers and people to pat them on their back who will look down on them and tell them it's so nice they try to strive. All the while, they've got their hand in the wallets of those looking down on them.
The Islamic world wants Europe for a whole different reason though.
Sadly I can imagine a world now where Islamic Danes invade an Indian Britain... you know... just for old times.
NATO is the mechanism by which the US has full control of the airspace and seas surrounding Europe, including the entirety of the Atlantic and Med as well as the majority of the Artic ocean. I think that is a good thing and I would refer to the usual arguments about why.
It serves to insulate that control from the government of the day of the minor member states, and all member states not the US are minor ones. The only time it didn't work was when Guallist France removed itself in a pique of Frenchiness. It was bad for everyone, but French domestic politics is the abyss that one should not stare into for too long.
Everything else about NATO is window dressing to make it palatable for those involved.
I have always suspected that at least part of the reason that France humphed and harrumphed its way out of NATO was that it rankled them to the core that a Muslim nation--Turkey--would have the same power of the vote as France would.
Funny, ain't it??? They call it NATO--but Turkey is circa 1,400 miles away from the North Atlantic. Turkey is in NATO because of the Crimean War!
Which lasted from circa 1853 to 1856.
The Crimean war was when, AMAZINGLY, Catholic France and Protestant England joined forces to protect the Territorial Integrity of MUSLIM Turkey!
Because, France and England decided they would rather fight earlier, rather than 5 or 10 years later mobilizing to protect the territorial integrity of... Germany, from Russian aggression.
IMPORTANT: The whomping Russia took during the Crimean War led to a cash crisis. One result of which was that Russia bit the bullet and SOLD ALASKA TO THE UNITED STATES, to raise cash.
One of my historical Shibboleths is, "It's all about the Cash Accounts, Baby."
Imperial France had such primitive accounting that they would go into vaults and weigh moneybags and then estimate. Their accounting was so bad that they spent all their available cash shoring up the American Revolution on the basis that "The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend."
Then, suddenly, the price of bread went (literally) out of control, and the French Revolution happened.
The foolishness of Russia in 1852-53 making a war out of a minor diplomatic flapdoodle still resonates today.
I read somewhere Ford pre-1950s accounting methods were similar!
Regarding the Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend actions of France, I was just thinking about their support of the Jacobites, which was obviously correct in 1715, but maybe counter productive by 1745.
I have a somewhat darker view of the motivations of La France, although I would not argue against the Catholic/quasi monarchist/conservative overlap within the Gaullist movement tipping things in favor of the withdrawal. Despite having a Catholic majority I have trouble thinking of it as a Catholic lead state since the Revolution or before.
I suppose a country doesn't really have a soul, but if they did France's would be the one most in need of prayer. Not because it is the most evil, or even more evil, but because it so often in history seems on the precipice of good and then turns back, or invents a new way to sabotage itself.
Years ago, in Catholic circles, it was said that France was "the eldest, but the most wayward of the Daughters of the Church."
During the French Revolution, in the breadbasket region called the "Vendee," 180,000 Catholics were murdered when they refused to renounce their faith.
If France were in Eastern Europe, it would be at least six separate countries!
You have hard-core Socialists in the same town or village as hard-core Catholics.
BTW, the French tradition of periodically changing up the head-bust statue of the mythical representation of Revolutionary Virtue, the "Marianne," is, at its core, baked-over, closeted Mary-olatry that is somehow acceptable to almost everybody.
Brigitte Bardot, Marielle Mathieu, Catherine Deneuve, and Laetitia Casta all have been models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne#Models There are about 17,000 such head busts in government offices throughout France.
The incident in the Vendee haunts me, more so than the reformation/counter religious violence. It was the killing fields, in France, two hundred years before. I have a partially baked theory about modern atrocities with Utopian intellectual roots.
It involves the correlation between France, revolutionary thought, a French education, Marxism, post modernism and a willingness to commit violence against ones neighbors in support of transformational change. The last ingredient it seems to need to catch fire is some bit of orientalism (in the original oriental vs. occidental sense, not the vaguely racist sense). I am a bit out over my skis on this one and it would be very dishonest of me not to acknowledge that the causation is not directly there, just a pattern I can't ignore.
This is sadly false. Anywhere we needed to move for excercises or training or even just routine movements required “march tickets” from euro governments in order to move. When we were allowed to move often times it was at great disadvantage to the US by paying hugely disadvantageous contract rates to whatever host nation would provide some shitty tents or a generator (in a place that already has power!)
Have short term opportunity training mission in another country? Good luck getting a flight plan in or getting diplomatic clearance!
With few exceptions nobody in Europe wants to actually pay or have a standing military of their own but also only wants us there for how much they can profit from us. End US participation in NATO yesterday.
The hugely inflated contracts are part of the window dressing that makes it palatable for those involved. The seas I mentioned are American lakes, and cheaply because of how easy it is to forward base and supply our ships. The word "easy" is in comparison to there not being NATO. Same goes for operating in their airspace.
Let’s run that down then. So by defending Europe and subsidizing their defense for the last 70 or so years the bargain we continue to accept is that in addition to providing security (perhaps GWOT not withstanding) we also have to pay fees ON TOP? Seems like a pretty bad deal from my American perspective. End NATO yesterday.
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Eisenhower in 1951: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”
President Eisenhower in 1959: European allies were “close to making a sucker out of Uncle Sam” by not sufficiently contributing to their own defense.
You keep saying this but I think you're wrong. I don't have the facts or surveys here but the people who are not fans of Israel and Ukraine money I talk to also tend not to be fans of NATO.
There's a lot of disdain for snobby Europeans who can't protect themselves and who think they're our cultural betters.
Just for the sake of being an exception to your generalization: as a supporter of Israel, I'd agree with Ronnie.
NATO is to our benefit only insofar as Europe allows us unfettered access to the north Atlantic and European landmass, and as military staging bases for the ME. Everything we need to know about NATO's utility otherwise can be summed up by noting that TURKEY is a NATO member. I wouldn't offer an extra $20/yr for the defense of Turkey, which is on the wrong side of the coming clash of civilizations. I think you agree with this.
Ukraine's defense is to our benefit only insofar as it is our interest to have a prosperous Germany or Poland. I'd argue that if Germany is worried about Russia, they probably ought to stop buying their NG and stop hectoring and haranguing the rest of the world with their brand of Old-Time Climate Religion. Nordic nations as well. Worried about Russia? Stop sending them money. I think you agree with this as well.
As it pertains to Israel -- I would argue that we get more bang for our buck there than we do spraying the money-hose at home. Iran is about to collapse (if we allow Israel to do their thing), and all we had to do was "butt out" of Gaza and bomb one nuclear facility with bunker busters. Iran overthrowing their theocracy would be the best thing that's happened to the world since the collapse of Nazism.
That's emblematic for the kind of ROI we've been getting for 80 years from Israel. That they are on the RIGHT side of the coming war of the worlds is a bonus when I'm arguing with you, but central to my way of seeing things. Is foreign aid expensive in a climate of $38T of debt? Yes. We get more return for dollars spent in Israel than we will from me drawing SS and signing up for medicare in 3- 5 years. I COULD continue to be productive but I'd rather hop on the gravy-train of free stuff, so I'm at least as much a part of the problem as is foreign aid to Israel. I'd rather stuff Iran in their locker than ride the gravy-train.
They're a western democracy in the ME. They are not Islamic. I outlined a few of the ways they're doing our work for us (as it pertains to Iran, etc.); but regardless, given what I know of you-- I'd think you could instinctively identify all the ways they're right. When every woke institution is apoplectic about supporting Israel, it's easy to identify them as a friend by recognizing who their enemies are. Israel's enemies are my enemies.
I personally have other (outweighing all other considerations) reasons for supporting them:
They've lived continuously on the land they occupy since the time of Abraham -- at which time God Almighty promised it to them forever. Their claim to "Palestine" (which has never existed as a nation) is far, far older than anybody else's. God promised to bless those who blessed them, and to oppose those who oppose them (Gen 12:1-3). Whereas I'm pretty fond of God's blessing and pretty reluctant of God's opposition, I'm selfishly inclined to continue to support them
... to the extent that I'd consider emigrating (as a non-Jew) if the US ever turns their back, as the rest of the "civilized" world has.
"Iran is about to collapse (if we allow Israel to do their thing), and all we had to do was "butt out" of Gaza and bomb one nuclear facility with bunker busters."
*And provide a lot of their air defense against retaliatory strikes by Iran
*And it was US efforts to topple Iraq and Syria that allowed Israeli aircraft a very easy/safe avenue of approach, to the point that they casually flew refueling tanker aircraft right over Syria without a care in the world.
The reason Israel behaves the way it does is that it *knows* the US is always there to back them up. On their own, in that last spat, they would have had much heavier casualties/damage from Iranian missiles IMO. To the point that they would probably have to act a lot less belligerant.
My point is that even if there aren't fans of NATO, I haven't seen anyone call Americans who support NATO, "Europe First," as is done with American supporters of aid to Israel. "Israel First" plays into some very old tropes about perfidy.
Do you think the Kamala Harris campaign asked any other potential VP candidates besides Gov. Shapiro if they were dual-agents for another country?
Why do you say stuff like that? I'm not seeing all the "secret Mossad agent" stuff that you seem to be seeing every time somebody supports the right of Israel to exist. I'm not seeing Jews doing much anything to the detriment of their country of residence, unless you see monetary success as stealing from the "right" people, which feels like a distinctly European (as opposed to American) trope.
Are there Jews working for other powers in our country? Probably, but the same can be said of almost every ethnicity or religious group. The vast majority of Jews are model citizens.
We can thank German Jews for making us a nuclear superpower. They've proven their allegiance to this nation over and over and over -- far more than the other side of the argument.
It’s pretty obvious that China wants to control everything in the pacific. In fact, the stated policy of the Chinese communist party is to destroy America. And with the Muslims controlling Europe and the UK, basically America will be alone in this world.
There aren't any Chinese subs in the Arctic. I mean, we haven't found any radiation spikes indicating reactors sunken by incompetence and poor quality control, have we?
What's been humorous these past few years is hearing about how the ice has NOT went away yet, thus delaying the passage from truly opening the way it could to conventional ships. While I'm certain China has a reactor powered sub, it always seems that their conventional petroleum stuff barely works properly. They very much have a culture of fake it till ya make it. (points to empty cities and inflated population numbers)
I too think there are definitely differences in culture but I also think that there are Chinese Craftsman. I haven't met one yet, but I'm sure they exist. Right?
Of course there is Chinese Craftsman. See also Harbor Freight.
But seriously, you're right in that there ARE likely some good people there. I have yet to work with a creative one that wasn't only thinking about shaving pennies off stuff where those pennies would save dollars.
I have different ideas as to what causes people to favor cost over quality EVERY time. Is it the fact that they're so good at math? And/or, is it that they don't believe in God?
The company I work for subcontracts for a Chinese state owned company, and I regularly travel to sites for commissioning.
From what I've seen, the Chinese are a deeply pragmatic group of people. The systems that they deem important are executed very well. Anything they deem ancillary is thrown together.
I dont actually know anything about their military systems. However, the pragmatism Ive seen on site leads me to assume they do their best to keep the 12 year old out of the subs.
Not a bad plan. It's amazing that the Danes didn't give a shit about Greenland (and almost sold it to China a few years ago) until Trump suddenly said he wanted it. Then like good little boys and girls who are obviously getting paid by someone else, they protested it.
I like buying it, because no one goes to war over it (and trust me the EU will NOT go to war to 'keep it', because they have neither the money nor the will if we're not paying them). Saying we should just 'not get involved' is funny, because the people saying that now are the same ones that pushed us into the Ukraine conflict.
I think we need a citation on the "almost sold it to China." They tried to sell it to us at the same time as Alaska; I can't find my own citation on almost selling it to China, only a story about blocking the sale of an ex-military base to a Chinese company that might have had direct involvement from the Danish prime minister.
That was the sale. And it wasn't a 'chinese company' it was a 'chinese company owned by China' and the obvious intent was to take over the area, just like they do every time they've done this in every other deal in the world.
It wasn't until it was called out that it was the government behind the sale and that they were planning on taking over everything, that it was stopped.
They don't want to be a state. They like their lives the way they are. (See, for example, This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland, by Gretel Ehrlich.)
It could be worse. The last group of people who were just fine living their lives in an arctic hellhole, by which I mean the MSP airport, were invaded by 300,000 Somalis.
Is it really? I've talked to several Peurto Ricans over the years and all of them except one said they would rather be a state. Wouldn't they have gotten more funding in natural disasters? I have no idea about the rest of our territories
If we put increased military infrastructure in Greenland now, even if Denmark ostensibly keeps it, I don't see a major risk of a future European caliphate forcing us out.
Also, as you pointed out a few other times in this, I don't think Russia is much of a military threat to the US these days. China is but it seems like there are plenty of fish to fry on that front. Like Canada slowly becoming China's Cuba or Belarus.
This has a dual nature of both preventing Russia from doing something dumb (because Putin is old and wont live forever) and also boxing in Canada a bit. Let's not forget that Canada has let in a LOT of people who don't just have wild ideas, but also seem to be pretty angry about everything the US does. Personally I hope we find a way to get Greenland AND Cuba just to truly have all the bases covered. There's been a lot of Polk era maps circulating and I gotta say, I'm super disappointed we gave all that land right back.
See, this is why we need genetic engineering: So we can resurrect Genghis Khan and Charles Martel and Vlad Tepes and turn them loose on the Islamic world.
That lot's gotten a bit too big for their britches of late and are desperately in need of a fucking good kicking.
Well yes, obviously, but look what happens when the Israelis actually do go in and kick some ass kinetically, the world comes to a stop crying for the fake Palestinians.
We've been buying more Swedish/Danish mid-century modern furniture to replace the random Craigslist and Costco buys we acquired in our first 15 years of marriage. I've been eyeballing a Danish-made dining table that extends from 84" to an eye-watering 201" (20 people!) with six leaves. Or a mere 141" with the three leaves that you can store inside it.
A Greenland tariff means I should convince my wife to buy this now, right? Right??
There are hardly any trees in Greenland, as Greenland is literally covered with ice. They don't drive there. There are no roads. They go by air or dogsled.
I meant "Greenland tariff" in the sense that we are going to punish Denmark for not donating the territory to us. Amusingly, some of the wood Skovby uses for its Danish furniture is from the USA. Presumably the same forests that once fueled central North Carolina's now-dead furniture manufacturing hub.
On Greenland: It would be fun to see what Greenland looked like when Erik & Leif were there. My brain can't comprehend just how different the world looked during the medieval climatic optimum.
probably much like it looks today. My recollection is that they built their houses with stone, which suggests that there wasn't much wood there, except ***maybe*** what washed up from North America, although would guess that when vikings were there, they would have brought some back from North America.
NC's furniture manufacturing, while maybe regressed from it's peak, is far from dead. I know first hand, because unlike out of state residents I have to pay sales tax when buying direct from the factories.
I've got a guy if future state finds you wanting to re-shore your housewares.
Good to know. We have a "Fine Furniture Shoppe" here in Boise that basically exclusively stocks craftsman-quality NC furniture. Everything I looked at there cost right around triple the Chinese/Vietnamese imports: $6000-$7000 for that very traditionally styled Lexington or Sherrill sofa vs $1800-2200 for the MCM-styled imports. I figured that must mean that mass-market NC furniture was no longer a thing and the only cost-effective pieces would be very high end. Granted, the ~$10-$12K Bradington Young sofas looked and felt far, far superior to the mid-tier imports!
I did see that Bassett still sells US made pieces, so you can get a basic table from them for $2600 vs an imported $1000. But the only MCM-looking table they have is just "backordered" with no availability date.
I had an uncle that recommended me to a furniture store when I bought my house, he was of means and lived on Long Island. Needing a new couch the wife and I took a quick trip to Highpoint to see what they had, long story short after watching my wife spend over an hour picking out couch and pillow fabric we got to the price. I caught a glimpse of a price tag when looking at the floor model and thought we were in the right ballpark but didn't realize sectionals were priced per piece, needless to say we got out of there quick after they slid the quote across the desk.
The next time I saw my uncle next I asked him what kind of money he thought I made, and his response was that he furnished his whole house out of that store for 100k, and it would have cost him 3x that if he bought in the city (NYC).
We ended up going with Basset for that sofa and now we've got a fair bit more of their stuff including a custom fabric love seat my wife spec'd out, all of it bought direct for 70-75% of the retail cost you see in the store, and all of it made right here in NC. The wholesalers will even honor what ever incentives the brands have going on in the store at time of purchase. I feel a little grimey cutting a sales person out of a commission but not enough to give up the discount.
Around 2000, my wife and I made a trip to Highpoint NC specifically to buy furniture. Back then, truly excellent stuff. From reading material like the article linked below, I thought it was dead. Relieved to hear it isn't.
For Basset we go through Hickory Furniture Mart, their website is a bit of a hot mess, what we do is either look direct on Basset or go to the store and get exact part numbers for what we want and then call our sales rep at HFM to place the order. If you're looking for another brand just Google x brand wholesale or factory direct
Not to worry, as the ice melts, we'll build out serious infrastructure.
The ice *will* melt, right? I'm trading in my Chevy Spark for a Chevy Bolt, but I don't think that will stop the ice from melting. 😢
At least once the ice melts, we can plant some trees on Greenland, and build some charging stations for all the EVs. I mean, if we give the Greenlanders money for joining up, they will certainly spend it on EVs, right?
You don't understand, and I'm not sure you're capable even of imagining that people might be happy living as the Greenlanders do.
The Greenlanders are happily self sufficient. They don't want any of the things you're suggesting they could have if they became part of the US. The Greenlanders don't want to become part of the US. They like their free education, and their free healthcare, and various other advantages that we lack in this country. They have almost no roads, or cars. They get around by dogsled, and they like it that way.
If you're at all curious, pick up a copy of This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland, by Gretel Ehrlich.
Another case of DJT having a good idea and then ruining the opportunity to act on that idea and have a good result. If Little Marco had been allowed to do all this behind the scenes it would be done. But because the orange ape can’t not spew everything on Truth Social we are in an unnecessary mess.
For context, I voted for Trump 3x, I am not voting for a democrat, in all likelihood, ever.
That's why we got Trump. The Tea Party attempted to get some sense but couldn't get the middle to move into that tent once the media made them look worse than the Libertarian Party.
I much prefer our present bull in a china shop political environment. It’s almost all out in the open. Instead of everything being negotiated in the back rooms and then being presented to us as what we have to take.
We will never know how much has been done behind the scenes where less than nothing gets accomplished. The assumption that certain talks can just happen out of the public eye anymore is pre 1990s thinking. We don't live in quiet, behind the scenes times anymore.
No, there is a huge difference to Little Marco flying to Denmark and having a conversation and Trump blasting the world through Truth Social. Social media is not positive in any circumstance including negotiating with allies.
Absolutely no Republican, alive or recently dead would have had stones to even discusss this, let alone the audacity to flip tables over like The Donald has. You go to war with the orange ape you have, not the one you want. Marco doesn't unzip his fly to piss without being told to.
The left is telegraphing amping up lawfare and imprisonment to '11' when they regain power to include treating ICE as we treated the SS. I would not take those threats lightly.
No. We need 50 years of momentum. I want to win. Period. 50 years. Turn the tide and just keep beating them into the ground until they can't get up. I want my grandkids to hear stories about this era and look at it the same way as I was in awe that we went from Carter to Reagan. (Which was hard to compute and I am also thankful that pendulum swing happened.)
Seems to me that the ones crying hardest about "our Democracy" being trampled just haven't done a thing except be good stans for the Left the last 40 years. Yeah, I'm done with just having a 4 year plan. I want domination beyond my lifetime now.
I got 3 little girls. I won't have us turn into parts of Europe. History is important and the American conservatives just got way too used to losing and saying "maybe next time will be different". Every group that has done that was exterminated. Gotta win for those girls and their girls.
People ask me if my right wing politics have softened after having daughters and I look at the AWFL single women in MN and tell them "Absolutely not, I want my daughters to be wives and mothers, not communists" and then everyone claps.
Way off topic, but as I keep hearing CNN say that the administration has to be held to "account", where are the actual arrests by the DOJ in regards to anything in the Biden administration or deep state? (Where was CNN holding Biden to account....?)
Pundits keep talking about retaliation, but the Dems are going to do it regardless, so why shouldn't Trump's DOJ start investigating and making charges?
One would think so. Possibilities include that they foolishly don't take the threat seriously or are being sandbagged by insiders or can't bring themselves to make the leap from Queensbury Rules.
Greenland has been discussed in the past and the US was never interested.
Donald is too selfish to realize he is his own worst enemy.
The left would be irrelevant if DJT would focus on making life better for Americans and have a productive 2nd term. Instead he is working towards to get his ass kicked in the midterms and maybe get impeached.
Excellent points. I would like to add that when, not if Russia finishes its war in Ukraine, most likely taking Odessa and all the eastern oblasts and leaving Kiev a landlocked rump state, it will still have a huge pile of well armed destabilized dogshit on its front door. Think Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexico on meth. The extra distance they are working for is to keep it as far away from Moscow as possible.
The three way swap of Ukraine, Taiwan and Venezuela/Greenland to their respective powers is not something to bet against. Europe is not in the running as a significant power in the future. The longhouse has committed demographic and economic suicide.
Couple good points here. The first is that if we're not growing, we're dying as a nation state. There are a lot of people in the continental USA that will dislike the idea of shoveling money to Greenland's population, but it is a good solution to purchase the island at a reasonable cost. In fact, I believe we should do MORE deals like this in the coming decade if only to continue our influence. While doing so, we should also offer at reduced cost, or even for free, the ability to move to these areas. That's what we did during western expansion. We should do it again.
America is not static. It shouldn't be. That doesn't mean we go and fight wars over land. It should mean we make deals that benefit all parties involved.
My last point would be this "native" thing with the inuits/native population. At what point do we stop this nonsense about claims and who was there first? I can trace my family roots back to the late 1600s. Does that mean I should have any more outsized influence? I really don't think so. Anyone beyond a second generation should probably be considered a native in general. We need to stop coddling these groups for things that happened over a hundo years ago.
For sure. But what I'm getting at is that we have a crazy weird spectrum swing of "been here forever" and "just got off the plane"... since we aren't using boats anymore. Tons of people in between.
And no, I wouldn't give people just stepping here the same perks as those here for all their lives.
i personally would be more careful with the "been here their whole lives" as second gen immigrants are sometimes worse than their parents. like how do you get chinese people nearly dying to escape communism only to have their daughter vote for mamdani?
the most obvious solution is to restrict voting to certain demographics but few people would ever go for that
Don't disagree. The second gens can be pretty bad. It is just there is at least an argument to be had about how they didn't make a choice to be where they are. I look forward to the end of birth right citizenship for this very reason.
And, yeah, the older I get the more I think "land owning citizens" are really who should be voting. But don't worry, it'll flip to that after normies don't own land. It's already headed that way.
China already has beachhead in our fallen Dominion. The permanent liberal government seems to be following the Cuban model. I pray Canada is not in for seventy years of repression and poverty.
There are lots of speculation as to the threats from Russia and China, and they all make sense. If that's the case, then why do we pussy foot around like this? Just tell us what's up. Just say that China is a national security threat, we can't trust them and that we are at war with them. Why allow all of this trade to continue and all of these 600K students to come study here? Why continue to send our IP there?
We are willing to go to blows with our allies and forcibly take land for FUTURE security, but we are not going to just go to blows with the ACTUAL enemies. That's odd to me.
I have a niece that graduated from West Point, and it's amazing how woked out she is. Can't say ANYTHING of value around her!
I'm wondering if it was always that way in the military... I would think not, but perhaps in the old days they were their own versions of the woke population.
Isn't there a moment in 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘳 when MacArthur misses a meeting on some remote pacific island outpost, Midway or some such, by 12 hours or a day, and thus almost surely avoids what was likely to have been his own assassination at the hands of Eisenhower's men?
Memory is an MF. But pretty sure something like this happened
"We are willing to go to blows with our allies and forcibly take land for FUTURE security, but we are not going to just go to blows with the ACTUAL enemies. That's odd to me. "
And that's why you know the stated rationale for doing this is a limited hangout, or an outright lie
The truly amusing thing about this whole Greenland situation is that, all of a sudden, the usual suspects are actually telling us that colonialism is a good thing. It almost makes you think they have no set morals or beliefs.
It's one of those things where every once in a while you can break your own rules. If you do it too many times however, you lose credibility and that's kinda where we are going...
If I am not mistaken when Denmark was occupied by or at least 'allied' with Germany in WW2, the US ran Iceland and until somewhat recently when it was given independence with zero fanfare.
Take it, then dictate terms. Here we are, wringing our hands about the rule of law like good conservatives, when our opponents learned 50? years ago to seize power by any means.
I am in favor of a peaceable transaction to acquire Greenland, if one can be made.
The one quibble I have about colonialism and “ownership” is that everything I’ve read is that the current Inuit residents actually arrived on Greenland after the Norse, and if Denmark is the rightful inheritor of the Viking claims, they have a longer history than anyone else. Sort of like the British in the Falklands.
Not that I expect the argument of “white people were indigenous and the Native Americans the colonizers ackshually” to hold even a drop of water in 2026, but my understanding is it is factually accurate. Accordingly, I have no trouble recognizing Denmark as both the legal and rightful owner of the territory. As I said though, a transaction could and should be made if possible.
Just as "authenticity" is a load of crap because we are our choices, the idea of "it's ours cause we're there" is a load. Real estate's been trading hands since Thak hit Grogg with a tree branch and triumphantly grunted, "Mine now!"
Isn't possession, and the defence of said possession, 9/10ths of the law?
I kid. I kid.
But isn't America ours because we are here and can defend it?
Isn't Ukraine pretty much going to lose land because it can't defend it?
I see all the time about how America and the West were colonizers were bad so it's ok to either have illegals here since the land isn't ours or bring in legals so they can vote out the "westerners" which of course is just another form of colonization.
I get it, it appears Greenland shouldn't be in the same conversation as illegal aliens, but it all falls under the same discussion of borders, nation building, and colonization.
Your stuff is yours if you can defend it. While we've delegated that task to a powerful monster we call The Law, the fact remains there's always a Thak out there with a tree branch.
Who needs an attitude adjustment or an education in Shoot Shovel Shutup if he fails to take the hint.
1. Well that's it though right, what is "the law" in this situation? International? The enforcement of that law has been such a joke it's meaningless.
2. Thak with a tree branch (assuming we are talking about a big bully nation) is no different than other nations directly and indirectly subverting the local laws and will of the people of another.
Yup.
Natural Law is defined by Thak's actions.
Manmade Law is defined by whoever got the higher ground and wants to maintain the position.
Manmade Law only works if the most powerful nations lead by example and thus enforce it's rules as well. However, I'm not that convinced that the US has been the greatest at either of this.
The international courts, the international police, and international military can enforce it! To this day, george bush is sitting in an international prison for war crimes. That's why you never see him anymore
There is no such thing as international law.
Exactly. It's a ridiculous concept.
Inuits have been in Greenland for as long as 5000 years.
Not the ancestors of the current inhabitants though:
https://icyseas.org/2022/12/28/viking-and-inuit-in-greenland/
Turns out you're right about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit
If you want American military bases in Greenland, that could have been done with a phone call. You do know that we had over a dozen bases there during the Cold War, don't you? And that Denmark has been a stalwart US ally, contributing more troop casualties as a proportion of population than any other nation in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars? That goodwill has now been squandered. The US plus Greenland minus NATO would be in a far more precarious defensive position, after we squander our reputation to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Amen.
The terms of that agreement were written in 1951. Back when Russia was the only threat and in the shadow of WW2. They do not cover the things that we need now.
There is already an American presence in Greenland. I think they are planning for a Europe that is either a Chinese puppet or under sharia law.
I also dont know what NATO does for the USA now.
What NATO does for the United States? They plot against us with our own money!
America's the Yankees, and NATO's the rest of MLB that gets a cut of our haul on the grounds that we're more awesome than the rest of them combined.
Is china the dodgers in this analogy
Theyre also forward bases for us. While Russiia is tied down in Ukraine, and Iran is on the back foot were free to sort out VZ and for that matter Iran. Allies are useful. If theyre freeloaders its because we let them be.
It’s probably useless to mention this, but the only time Article 5 of the NATO Treaty has ever been invoked was after 9/11. The Danes fought with us in Afghanistan and sustained significant losses.
It’s probably also useless to remind people that the reason the US can project power in the Middle East is because of bases on European soil. A continued American presence on those bases is not carved in stone.
It's partially our fault Europe's been overrun by medieval savages.
We needed basing rights on The Continent to keep the Soviets from getting cute, so we ponied up the defense costs of a dozen countries that could then waste their money on Kumbaya socialism and suicidal nonsense like, "Those people aren't dangerous! They just want freedom!"
So they let Ahmed into their time machine and dragged his ass into the 20th century. Once he stopped squinting at the crystal spires and togas, he realized if he could convince these idiotic future people to go get his cousins, they could just TAKE what they wanted.
It's never been easier for Islamists to conquer nations than it is now.
The crusades never ended...They just took a light nap.
Totally agree
How many kids do I have to have!
https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/160017227/Im-doing-my-part
We should apologize to the Danes for dragging them into that awful and unjustified conflict.
This only proves that Denmark has always groveled at our feet, culminating in giving up much of their military (save for two dog sleds) to the Ukraine and claiming they might otherwise be attached by Russia.
The irony is truly delicious.
Boys, we're taking back Europe too
Deus Vult
In the foreseeable future, China will be interested in Europe solely from a touristic perspective. Europe may aspire to change masters at some point, but it will have little to offer.
China only wants Europe to have a place to dump their products. They need consumers and people to pat them on their back who will look down on them and tell them it's so nice they try to strive. All the while, they've got their hand in the wallets of those looking down on them.
The Islamic world wants Europe for a whole different reason though.
Sadly I can imagine a world now where Islamic Danes invade an Indian Britain... you know... just for old times.
NATO is the mechanism by which the US has full control of the airspace and seas surrounding Europe, including the entirety of the Atlantic and Med as well as the majority of the Artic ocean. I think that is a good thing and I would refer to the usual arguments about why.
It serves to insulate that control from the government of the day of the minor member states, and all member states not the US are minor ones. The only time it didn't work was when Guallist France removed itself in a pique of Frenchiness. It was bad for everyone, but French domestic politics is the abyss that one should not stare into for too long.
Everything else about NATO is window dressing to make it palatable for those involved.
Amen
I have always suspected that at least part of the reason that France humphed and harrumphed its way out of NATO was that it rankled them to the core that a Muslim nation--Turkey--would have the same power of the vote as France would.
Funny, ain't it??? They call it NATO--but Turkey is circa 1,400 miles away from the North Atlantic. Turkey is in NATO because of the Crimean War!
Which lasted from circa 1853 to 1856.
The Crimean war was when, AMAZINGLY, Catholic France and Protestant England joined forces to protect the Territorial Integrity of MUSLIM Turkey!
Because, France and England decided they would rather fight earlier, rather than 5 or 10 years later mobilizing to protect the territorial integrity of... Germany, from Russian aggression.
IMPORTANT: The whomping Russia took during the Crimean War led to a cash crisis. One result of which was that Russia bit the bullet and SOLD ALASKA TO THE UNITED STATES, to raise cash.
One of my historical Shibboleths is, "It's all about the Cash Accounts, Baby."
Imperial France had such primitive accounting that they would go into vaults and weigh moneybags and then estimate. Their accounting was so bad that they spent all their available cash shoring up the American Revolution on the basis that "The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend."
Then, suddenly, the price of bread went (literally) out of control, and the French Revolution happened.
The foolishness of Russia in 1852-53 making a war out of a minor diplomatic flapdoodle still resonates today.
I read somewhere Ford pre-1950s accounting methods were similar!
Regarding the Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend actions of France, I was just thinking about their support of the Jacobites, which was obviously correct in 1715, but maybe counter productive by 1745.
I have a somewhat darker view of the motivations of La France, although I would not argue against the Catholic/quasi monarchist/conservative overlap within the Gaullist movement tipping things in favor of the withdrawal. Despite having a Catholic majority I have trouble thinking of it as a Catholic lead state since the Revolution or before.
I suppose a country doesn't really have a soul, but if they did France's would be the one most in need of prayer. Not because it is the most evil, or even more evil, but because it so often in history seems on the precipice of good and then turns back, or invents a new way to sabotage itself.
Years ago, in Catholic circles, it was said that France was "the eldest, but the most wayward of the Daughters of the Church."
During the French Revolution, in the breadbasket region called the "Vendee," 180,000 Catholics were murdered when they refused to renounce their faith.
If France were in Eastern Europe, it would be at least six separate countries!
You have hard-core Socialists in the same town or village as hard-core Catholics.
BTW, the French tradition of periodically changing up the head-bust statue of the mythical representation of Revolutionary Virtue, the "Marianne," is, at its core, baked-over, closeted Mary-olatry that is somehow acceptable to almost everybody.
Brigitte Bardot, Marielle Mathieu, Catherine Deneuve, and Laetitia Casta all have been models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne#Models There are about 17,000 such head busts in government offices throughout France.
saint-jean
The incident in the Vendee haunts me, more so than the reformation/counter religious violence. It was the killing fields, in France, two hundred years before. I have a partially baked theory about modern atrocities with Utopian intellectual roots.
It involves the correlation between France, revolutionary thought, a French education, Marxism, post modernism and a willingness to commit violence against ones neighbors in support of transformational change. The last ingredient it seems to need to catch fire is some bit of orientalism (in the original oriental vs. occidental sense, not the vaguely racist sense). I am a bit out over my skis on this one and it would be very dishonest of me not to acknowledge that the causation is not directly there, just a pattern I can't ignore.
2002 Navistar accounting was also pretty similar
'Imperial France had such primitive accounting that they would go into vaults and weigh moneybags and then estimate. '
This is the plot of "Fast Five", if I recall correctly.
This is sadly false. Anywhere we needed to move for excercises or training or even just routine movements required “march tickets” from euro governments in order to move. When we were allowed to move often times it was at great disadvantage to the US by paying hugely disadvantageous contract rates to whatever host nation would provide some shitty tents or a generator (in a place that already has power!)
Have short term opportunity training mission in another country? Good luck getting a flight plan in or getting diplomatic clearance!
With few exceptions nobody in Europe wants to actually pay or have a standing military of their own but also only wants us there for how much they can profit from us. End US participation in NATO yesterday.
The hugely inflated contracts are part of the window dressing that makes it palatable for those involved. The seas I mentioned are American lakes, and cheaply because of how easy it is to forward base and supply our ships. The word "easy" is in comparison to there not being NATO. Same goes for operating in their airspace.
Let’s run that down then. So by defending Europe and subsidizing their defense for the last 70 or so years the bargain we continue to accept is that in addition to providing security (perhaps GWOT not withstanding) we also have to pay fees ON TOP? Seems like a pretty bad deal from my American perspective. End NATO yesterday.
In return we get a quiet, passive Europe free from any ability to contemplate adventurism.
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Eisenhower in 1951: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”
President Eisenhower in 1959: European allies were “close to making a sucker out of Uncle Sam” by not sufficiently contributing to their own defense.
I like Ike!
Germans down, Americans in, Soviets out.
Oddly, supporters of NATO and the billions we've spent defending western Europe are not disparaged with "Europe First" as with some American allies.
You keep saying this but I think you're wrong. I don't have the facts or surveys here but the people who are not fans of Israel and Ukraine money I talk to also tend not to be fans of NATO.
There's a lot of disdain for snobby Europeans who can't protect themselves and who think they're our cultural betters.
Just for the sake of being an exception to your generalization: as a supporter of Israel, I'd agree with Ronnie.
NATO is to our benefit only insofar as Europe allows us unfettered access to the north Atlantic and European landmass, and as military staging bases for the ME. Everything we need to know about NATO's utility otherwise can be summed up by noting that TURKEY is a NATO member. I wouldn't offer an extra $20/yr for the defense of Turkey, which is on the wrong side of the coming clash of civilizations. I think you agree with this.
Ukraine's defense is to our benefit only insofar as it is our interest to have a prosperous Germany or Poland. I'd argue that if Germany is worried about Russia, they probably ought to stop buying their NG and stop hectoring and haranguing the rest of the world with their brand of Old-Time Climate Religion. Nordic nations as well. Worried about Russia? Stop sending them money. I think you agree with this as well.
As it pertains to Israel -- I would argue that we get more bang for our buck there than we do spraying the money-hose at home. Iran is about to collapse (if we allow Israel to do their thing), and all we had to do was "butt out" of Gaza and bomb one nuclear facility with bunker busters. Iran overthrowing their theocracy would be the best thing that's happened to the world since the collapse of Nazism.
That's emblematic for the kind of ROI we've been getting for 80 years from Israel. That they are on the RIGHT side of the coming war of the worlds is a bonus when I'm arguing with you, but central to my way of seeing things. Is foreign aid expensive in a climate of $38T of debt? Yes. We get more return for dollars spent in Israel than we will from me drawing SS and signing up for medicare in 3- 5 years. I COULD continue to be productive but I'd rather hop on the gravy-train of free stuff, so I'm at least as much a part of the problem as is foreign aid to Israel. I'd rather stuff Iran in their locker than ride the gravy-train.
That's my take. YMMV.
"they are on the RIGHT side of the coming war of the worlds"
isreal is on the right side? how?
Absolutely, friend.
They're a western democracy in the ME. They are not Islamic. I outlined a few of the ways they're doing our work for us (as it pertains to Iran, etc.); but regardless, given what I know of you-- I'd think you could instinctively identify all the ways they're right. When every woke institution is apoplectic about supporting Israel, it's easy to identify them as a friend by recognizing who their enemies are. Israel's enemies are my enemies.
I personally have other (outweighing all other considerations) reasons for supporting them:
They've lived continuously on the land they occupy since the time of Abraham -- at which time God Almighty promised it to them forever. Their claim to "Palestine" (which has never existed as a nation) is far, far older than anybody else's. God promised to bless those who blessed them, and to oppose those who oppose them (Gen 12:1-3). Whereas I'm pretty fond of God's blessing and pretty reluctant of God's opposition, I'm selfishly inclined to continue to support them
... to the extent that I'd consider emigrating (as a non-Jew) if the US ever turns their back, as the rest of the "civilized" world has.
"Iran is about to collapse (if we allow Israel to do their thing), and all we had to do was "butt out" of Gaza and bomb one nuclear facility with bunker busters."
*And provide a lot of their air defense against retaliatory strikes by Iran
*And it was US efforts to topple Iraq and Syria that allowed Israeli aircraft a very easy/safe avenue of approach, to the point that they casually flew refueling tanker aircraft right over Syria without a care in the world.
The reason Israel behaves the way it does is that it *knows* the US is always there to back them up. On their own, in that last spat, they would have had much heavier casualties/damage from Iranian missiles IMO. To the point that they would probably have to act a lot less belligerant.
My point is that even if there aren't fans of NATO, I haven't seen anyone call Americans who support NATO, "Europe First," as is done with American supporters of aid to Israel. "Israel First" plays into some very old tropes about perfidy.
Do you think the Kamala Harris campaign asked any other potential VP candidates besides Gov. Shapiro if they were dual-agents for another country?
"I haven't seen anyone call Americans who support NATO, "Europe First"
nah they just get called white nationalists and get their bank accounts frozen
""Israel First" plays into some very old tropes about perfidy"
i mean if the shoe fits
Why do you say stuff like that? I'm not seeing all the "secret Mossad agent" stuff that you seem to be seeing every time somebody supports the right of Israel to exist. I'm not seeing Jews doing much anything to the detriment of their country of residence, unless you see monetary success as stealing from the "right" people, which feels like a distinctly European (as opposed to American) trope.
Are there Jews working for other powers in our country? Probably, but the same can be said of almost every ethnicity or religious group. The vast majority of Jews are model citizens.
We can thank German Jews for making us a nuclear superpower. They've proven their allegiance to this nation over and over and over -- far more than the other side of the argument.
It’s pretty obvious that China wants to control everything in the pacific. In fact, the stated policy of the Chinese communist party is to destroy America. And with the Muslims controlling Europe and the UK, basically America will be alone in this world.
There aren't any Chinese subs in the Arctic. I mean, we haven't found any radiation spikes indicating reactors sunken by incompetence and poor quality control, have we?
What's been humorous these past few years is hearing about how the ice has NOT went away yet, thus delaying the passage from truly opening the way it could to conventional ships. While I'm certain China has a reactor powered sub, it always seems that their conventional petroleum stuff barely works properly. They very much have a culture of fake it till ya make it. (points to empty cities and inflated population numbers)
The Arctic's frozen solid! It's global warming!
The Chinese have no respect for The Craftsman. Never have. They respect The Warlord.
WHICH IS WHY THEY MAKE CRAP.
Them -The uniculture idea that everyone thinks the same way we do.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT. Not all cultures are created equal and different nations cherish different things.
I too think there are definitely differences in culture but I also think that there are Chinese Craftsman. I haven't met one yet, but I'm sure they exist. Right?
Of course there is Chinese Craftsman. See also Harbor Freight.
But seriously, you're right in that there ARE likely some good people there. I have yet to work with a creative one that wasn't only thinking about shaving pennies off stuff where those pennies would save dollars.
I have different ideas as to what causes people to favor cost over quality EVERY time. Is it the fact that they're so good at math? And/or, is it that they don't believe in God?
"Of course there is Chinese Craftsman. See also Harbor Freight."
made me lol
The company I work for subcontracts for a Chinese state owned company, and I regularly travel to sites for commissioning.
From what I've seen, the Chinese are a deeply pragmatic group of people. The systems that they deem important are executed very well. Anything they deem ancillary is thrown together.
I dont actually know anything about their military systems. However, the pragmatism Ive seen on site leads me to assume they do their best to keep the 12 year old out of the subs.
"Pragmatic" in the sense of "utilitarian" or "amoral."
Not a bad plan. It's amazing that the Danes didn't give a shit about Greenland (and almost sold it to China a few years ago) until Trump suddenly said he wanted it. Then like good little boys and girls who are obviously getting paid by someone else, they protested it.
I like buying it, because no one goes to war over it (and trust me the EU will NOT go to war to 'keep it', because they have neither the money nor the will if we're not paying them). Saying we should just 'not get involved' is funny, because the people saying that now are the same ones that pushed us into the Ukraine conflict.
If it was president Harris' puppet masters asking for Greenland the deal would already be done.
Trump derangement syndrome is real and an embarrassment for everyone involved.
Harris wouldn't be trying to take over Greenland. That's the sort of thing that the Very Angry Toddler does.
You are correct, Trump is deranged. And senile. And basically a 3 year old in a large suit.
It's like the guy who owns a junkyard, who lords over a pasture full of trash that's worthless until someone else wants it.
"i cant sell it to someone who just wants to fix it up and sell it again"
tard brain behaviour
I KNOW WHAT I HAVE
"I can't let you in the yard. Insurance."
Okay, AutoZone it is! I'm not going to a junkyard if I can't wander the yard. That's the whole point!
"okay having fun getting zero dollars for your rapidly depreciating asset"
I think we need a citation on the "almost sold it to China." They tried to sell it to us at the same time as Alaska; I can't find my own citation on almost selling it to China, only a story about blocking the sale of an ex-military base to a Chinese company that might have had direct involvement from the Danish prime minister.
That was the sale. And it wasn't a 'chinese company' it was a 'chinese company owned by China' and the obvious intent was to take over the area, just like they do every time they've done this in every other deal in the world.
It wasn't until it was called out that it was the government behind the sale and that they were planning on taking over everything, that it was stopped.
Four presidents have tried to buy Greenland. Andrew Johnson, William Taft, Harry Truman, Donald Trump.
In Greenlands defense, I would only sell if I were made a state.
They don't want to be a state. They like their lives the way they are. (See, for example, This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland, by Gretel Ehrlich.)
It could be worse. The last group of people who were just fine living their lives in an arctic hellhole, by which I mean the MSP airport, were invaded by 300,000 Somalis.
That's a good idea. I've heard on good authority that island territories may tip over if you put too many men on them.
It’s actually a better deal (Or so I’ve been told) to be a ‘territory’ than a state.
Is it really? I've talked to several Peurto Ricans over the years and all of them except one said they would rather be a state. Wouldn't they have gotten more funding in natural disasters? I have no idea about the rest of our territories
I think being a Pacific territory is AWFUL.
Puerto Rico would make a nice state.
We really did the Hawaiians dirty.
I'm sure Puerto Ricans could have financed a lot of disaster recovery with all the income tax they never had to pay.
If we put increased military infrastructure in Greenland now, even if Denmark ostensibly keeps it, I don't see a major risk of a future European caliphate forcing us out.
Also, as you pointed out a few other times in this, I don't think Russia is much of a military threat to the US these days. China is but it seems like there are plenty of fish to fry on that front. Like Canada slowly becoming China's Cuba or Belarus.
This has a dual nature of both preventing Russia from doing something dumb (because Putin is old and wont live forever) and also boxing in Canada a bit. Let's not forget that Canada has let in a LOT of people who don't just have wild ideas, but also seem to be pretty angry about everything the US does. Personally I hope we find a way to get Greenland AND Cuba just to truly have all the bases covered. There's been a lot of Polk era maps circulating and I gotta say, I'm super disappointed we gave all that land right back.
we have millions of indians we need to deport and it would be pretty rad if the us helped us out on that front so we can improve border relations
Canada?
for now
about to be some kind of asian satellite state with all the chinese influence and indians running around
Just explain to the people that Canada will never win another Stanley Cup without an immense deportation plan.
See, this is why we need genetic engineering: So we can resurrect Genghis Khan and Charles Martel and Vlad Tepes and turn them loose on the Islamic world.
That lot's gotten a bit too big for their britches of late and are desperately in need of a fucking good kicking.
SIR! THE LAST TIME THAT WAS TRIED WE GOT... SERPENTOR!
https://youtu.be/9YYMw1_FZL8?si=NilMcmqwYl9fJK7K
That guy had style...
Agreed!!!
Though, somebody's gonna have to build 'em those cool, um...Segway...skycycles like Serpentor had.
There's another hundred billion down the Lockheed Martin rathole.
Interesting thought
Way better than a horse, and literbikes can't fly.
...for long.
They're working on it
https://volonaut.com/airbike
literally no reason why we couldnt get rid of them all right now
a us/nato force hellbent on cleansing them from their land could do it
Well yes, obviously, but look what happens when the Israelis actually do go in and kick some ass kinetically, the world comes to a stop crying for the fake Palestinians.
We've been buying more Swedish/Danish mid-century modern furniture to replace the random Craigslist and Costco buys we acquired in our first 15 years of marriage. I've been eyeballing a Danish-made dining table that extends from 84" to an eye-watering 201" (20 people!) with six leaves. Or a mere 141" with the three leaves that you can store inside it.
A Greenland tariff means I should convince my wife to buy this now, right? Right??
(Look up the Skovby #27. Viking genius, I say.)
We love our Skovby sideboard/credenza. Very well made with a lot of nice and functional design choices. BUY NOW!
That’s just smart, to take advantage of the lay of the land!
There are hardly any trees in Greenland, as Greenland is literally covered with ice. They don't drive there. There are no roads. They go by air or dogsled.
I meant "Greenland tariff" in the sense that we are going to punish Denmark for not donating the territory to us. Amusingly, some of the wood Skovby uses for its Danish furniture is from the USA. Presumably the same forests that once fueled central North Carolina's now-dead furniture manufacturing hub.
On Greenland: It would be fun to see what Greenland looked like when Erik & Leif were there. My brain can't comprehend just how different the world looked during the medieval climatic optimum.
probably much like it looks today. My recollection is that they built their houses with stone, which suggests that there wasn't much wood there, except ***maybe*** what washed up from North America, although would guess that when vikings were there, they would have brought some back from North America.
NC's furniture manufacturing, while maybe regressed from it's peak, is far from dead. I know first hand, because unlike out of state residents I have to pay sales tax when buying direct from the factories.
I've got a guy if future state finds you wanting to re-shore your housewares.
Good to know. We have a "Fine Furniture Shoppe" here in Boise that basically exclusively stocks craftsman-quality NC furniture. Everything I looked at there cost right around triple the Chinese/Vietnamese imports: $6000-$7000 for that very traditionally styled Lexington or Sherrill sofa vs $1800-2200 for the MCM-styled imports. I figured that must mean that mass-market NC furniture was no longer a thing and the only cost-effective pieces would be very high end. Granted, the ~$10-$12K Bradington Young sofas looked and felt far, far superior to the mid-tier imports!
I did see that Bassett still sells US made pieces, so you can get a basic table from them for $2600 vs an imported $1000. But the only MCM-looking table they have is just "backordered" with no availability date.
I had an uncle that recommended me to a furniture store when I bought my house, he was of means and lived on Long Island. Needing a new couch the wife and I took a quick trip to Highpoint to see what they had, long story short after watching my wife spend over an hour picking out couch and pillow fabric we got to the price. I caught a glimpse of a price tag when looking at the floor model and thought we were in the right ballpark but didn't realize sectionals were priced per piece, needless to say we got out of there quick after they slid the quote across the desk.
The next time I saw my uncle next I asked him what kind of money he thought I made, and his response was that he furnished his whole house out of that store for 100k, and it would have cost him 3x that if he bought in the city (NYC).
We ended up going with Basset for that sofa and now we've got a fair bit more of their stuff including a custom fabric love seat my wife spec'd out, all of it bought direct for 70-75% of the retail cost you see in the store, and all of it made right here in NC. The wholesalers will even honor what ever incentives the brands have going on in the store at time of purchase. I feel a little grimey cutting a sales person out of a commission but not enough to give up the discount.
Thayer Coggin is still in NC.
Around 2000, my wife and I made a trip to Highpoint NC specifically to buy furniture. Back then, truly excellent stuff. From reading material like the article linked below, I thought it was dead. Relieved to hear it isn't.
https://www.furnituretoday.com/business-news/abg-completes-purchase-thomasville-henredon-and-drexel/
Henredon is no longer being made thanks to lizard people "adding value."
BUNCH OF TIME SELLERS
THEY DESERVED IT
IMAGINE BEING PROUD OF MAKING FURNITURE THAT LASTS
WHEN YOU COULD BE PROUD OF MAKING DEALS
Tell me more. Any urls?
For Basset we go through Hickory Furniture Mart, their website is a bit of a hot mess, what we do is either look direct on Basset or go to the store and get exact part numbers for what we want and then call our sales rep at HFM to place the order. If you're looking for another brand just Google x brand wholesale or factory direct
Not to worry, as the ice melts, we'll build out serious infrastructure.
The ice *will* melt, right? I'm trading in my Chevy Spark for a Chevy Bolt, but I don't think that will stop the ice from melting. 😢
At least once the ice melts, we can plant some trees on Greenland, and build some charging stations for all the EVs. I mean, if we give the Greenlanders money for joining up, they will certainly spend it on EVs, right?
You don't understand, and I'm not sure you're capable even of imagining that people might be happy living as the Greenlanders do.
The Greenlanders are happily self sufficient. They don't want any of the things you're suggesting they could have if they became part of the US. The Greenlanders don't want to become part of the US. They like their free education, and their free healthcare, and various other advantages that we lack in this country. They have almost no roads, or cars. They get around by dogsled, and they like it that way.
If you're at all curious, pick up a copy of This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland, by Gretel Ehrlich.
Joe, If you're at all curious, pick up a copy of This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland, by Gretel Ehrlich (an American).
Another case of DJT having a good idea and then ruining the opportunity to act on that idea and have a good result. If Little Marco had been allowed to do all this behind the scenes it would be done. But because the orange ape can’t not spew everything on Truth Social we are in an unnecessary mess.
For context, I voted for Trump 3x, I am not voting for a democrat, in all likelihood, ever.
It’s been many years since there has been an actual Democrat to vote for.
same with republicans
That's why we got Trump. The Tea Party attempted to get some sense but couldn't get the middle to move into that tent once the media made them look worse than the Libertarian Party.
Welp, bull... meet china shop.
I much prefer our present bull in a china shop political environment. It’s almost all out in the open. Instead of everything being negotiated in the back rooms and then being presented to us as what we have to take.
We will never know how much has been done behind the scenes where less than nothing gets accomplished. The assumption that certain talks can just happen out of the public eye anymore is pre 1990s thinking. We don't live in quiet, behind the scenes times anymore.
No, there is a huge difference to Little Marco flying to Denmark and having a conversation and Trump blasting the world through Truth Social. Social media is not positive in any circumstance including negotiating with allies.
Agreed.
Absolutely no Republican, alive or recently dead would have had stones to even discusss this, let alone the audacity to flip tables over like The Donald has. You go to war with the orange ape you have, not the one you want. Marco doesn't unzip his fly to piss without being told to.
The left is telegraphing amping up lawfare and imprisonment to '11' when they regain power to include treating ICE as we treated the SS. I would not take those threats lightly.
That's why we need Vance or somebody after Trump to keep up the momentum until it sticks.
No. We need 50 years of momentum. I want to win. Period. 50 years. Turn the tide and just keep beating them into the ground until they can't get up. I want my grandkids to hear stories about this era and look at it the same way as I was in awe that we went from Carter to Reagan. (Which was hard to compute and I am also thankful that pendulum swing happened.)
Seems to me that the ones crying hardest about "our Democracy" being trampled just haven't done a thing except be good stans for the Left the last 40 years. Yeah, I'm done with just having a 4 year plan. I want domination beyond my lifetime now.
incredibly based and an outlook basically everyone should have
I got 3 little girls. I won't have us turn into parts of Europe. History is important and the American conservatives just got way too used to losing and saying "maybe next time will be different". Every group that has done that was exterminated. Gotta win for those girls and their girls.
yeah conservatives are pathetic
there has to be a group of people fighting for the right for their country to not just exist but prosper
People ask me if my right wing politics have softened after having daughters and I look at the AWFL single women in MN and tell them "Absolutely not, I want my daughters to be wives and mothers, not communists" and then everyone claps.
Realistically i say, "not really"
The pendulum swinging back hard enough to the left as to undo everything permanently is my main concern.
Enough of these social media nitwits voting will do just that.
“ You go to war with the orange ape you have, not the one you want.”
Easily comment of the month.
Way off topic, but as I keep hearing CNN say that the administration has to be held to "account", where are the actual arrests by the DOJ in regards to anything in the Biden administration or deep state? (Where was CNN holding Biden to account....?)
Pundits keep talking about retaliation, but the Dems are going to do it regardless, so why shouldn't Trump's DOJ start investigating and making charges?
One would think so. Possibilities include that they foolishly don't take the threat seriously or are being sandbagged by insiders or can't bring themselves to make the leap from Queensbury Rules.
Greenland has been discussed in the past and the US was never interested.
Donald is too selfish to realize he is his own worst enemy.
The left would be irrelevant if DJT would focus on making life better for Americans and have a productive 2nd term. Instead he is working towards to get his ass kicked in the midterms and maybe get impeached.
Four presidents have tried to buy Greenland. Andrew Johnson, William Taft, Harry Truman, and Donald Trump.
Excellent points. I would like to add that when, not if Russia finishes its war in Ukraine, most likely taking Odessa and all the eastern oblasts and leaving Kiev a landlocked rump state, it will still have a huge pile of well armed destabilized dogshit on its front door. Think Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexico on meth. The extra distance they are working for is to keep it as far away from Moscow as possible.
The three way swap of Ukraine, Taiwan and Venezuela/Greenland to their respective powers is not something to bet against. Europe is not in the running as a significant power in the future. The longhouse has committed demographic and economic suicide.
Hell, half the reason Russia wants Ukraine is that it needs an ice-free port.
And all its non-Arctic shipyards are on the Black Sea.
That's brilliant, isn't it? Welding subs together when it's 30 below ambient? It's a legit miracle they didn't lose more to manufacturing defects.
The ocean's like an F40: It WILL find your mistakes and rip you to shreds for them.
We can debate your silly simile here, in the privacy of my experimental submarine. Bring the kids!
Bring the billionaire fitness fiends
Leave the kids
Couple good points here. The first is that if we're not growing, we're dying as a nation state. There are a lot of people in the continental USA that will dislike the idea of shoveling money to Greenland's population, but it is a good solution to purchase the island at a reasonable cost. In fact, I believe we should do MORE deals like this in the coming decade if only to continue our influence. While doing so, we should also offer at reduced cost, or even for free, the ability to move to these areas. That's what we did during western expansion. We should do it again.
America is not static. It shouldn't be. That doesn't mean we go and fight wars over land. It should mean we make deals that benefit all parties involved.
My last point would be this "native" thing with the inuits/native population. At what point do we stop this nonsense about claims and who was there first? I can trace my family roots back to the late 1600s. Does that mean I should have any more outsized influence? I really don't think so. Anyone beyond a second generation should probably be considered a native in general. We need to stop coddling these groups for things that happened over a hundo years ago.
"I can trace my family roots back to the late 1600s. Does that mean I should have any more outsized influence?"
over someone who just got there? yes of course
For sure. But what I'm getting at is that we have a crazy weird spectrum swing of "been here forever" and "just got off the plane"... since we aren't using boats anymore. Tons of people in between.
And no, I wouldn't give people just stepping here the same perks as those here for all their lives.
i personally would be more careful with the "been here their whole lives" as second gen immigrants are sometimes worse than their parents. like how do you get chinese people nearly dying to escape communism only to have their daughter vote for mamdani?
the most obvious solution is to restrict voting to certain demographics but few people would ever go for that
Don't disagree. The second gens can be pretty bad. It is just there is at least an argument to be had about how they didn't make a choice to be where they are. I look forward to the end of birth right citizenship for this very reason.
And, yeah, the older I get the more I think "land owning citizens" are really who should be voting. But don't worry, it'll flip to that after normies don't own land. It's already headed that way.
"they didn't make a choice to be where they are"
and we should let them go back asap
but yeah youre right about the rest
No group has been in the same place "forever". None.
BINGO
I will just leave this here:
https://youtu.be/aDfgeCvE5as?si=1LWGkErTLYy1d7sM
China already has beachhead in our fallen Dominion. The permanent liberal government seems to be following the Cuban model. I pray Canada is not in for seventy years of repression and poverty.
the upside is that it may not be canada in 70 years
wait thats awful nevermind
10 down, only 60 more to go?
Haha it's already in assisted suicide mode. A week in GTA made that clear to me.
.
Sadly. I live/work/commute in the GTA, it is not good.
There are lots of speculation as to the threats from Russia and China, and they all make sense. If that's the case, then why do we pussy foot around like this? Just tell us what's up. Just say that China is a national security threat, we can't trust them and that we are at war with them. Why allow all of this trade to continue and all of these 600K students to come study here? Why continue to send our IP there?
We are willing to go to blows with our allies and forcibly take land for FUTURE security, but we are not going to just go to blows with the ACTUAL enemies. That's odd to me.
Because we know we would lose, or else it would escalate such that we would all lose.
It's a somewhat disappointing reality. We've squandered such a big lead...
Horse, barn. Was MacArthur right? Who knows. Patton was.
Patton was da man!
Mark A. Milley or George S. Patton? LOL
I almost didn’t whiff the sarcasm until I did,
Will tell people this was a near-death experience
I have a niece that graduated from West Point, and it's amazing how woked out she is. Can't say ANYTHING of value around her!
I'm wondering if it was always that way in the military... I would think not, but perhaps in the old days they were their own versions of the woke population.
MacArthur was right.
Isn't there a moment in 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘳 when MacArthur misses a meeting on some remote pacific island outpost, Midway or some such, by 12 hours or a day, and thus almost surely avoids what was likely to have been his own assassination at the hands of Eisenhower's men?
Memory is an MF. But pretty sure something like this happened
"We are willing to go to blows with our allies and forcibly take land for FUTURE security, but we are not going to just go to blows with the ACTUAL enemies. That's odd to me. "
And that's why you know the stated rationale for doing this is a limited hangout, or an outright lie
The truly amusing thing about this whole Greenland situation is that, all of a sudden, the usual suspects are actually telling us that colonialism is a good thing. It almost makes you think they have no set morals or beliefs.
Yep yep
All of the newly minted PhD's in Arctic Geopolitics arriving on X is impressive. Just last week they were PhD's in police procedure and use of force.
"It almost makes you think they have no set morals or beliefs
you may want to sit down before i tell you this
https://i1.wp.com/jackbaruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/calvin.png?resize=650%2C426&ssl=1
It's one of those things where every once in a while you can break your own rules. If you do it too many times however, you lose credibility and that's kinda where we are going...
If I am not mistaken when Denmark was occupied by or at least 'allied' with Germany in WW2, the US ran Iceland and until somewhat recently when it was given independence with zero fanfare.
Take it, then dictate terms. Here we are, wringing our hands about the rule of law like good conservatives, when our opponents learned 50? years ago to seize power by any means.