upvote

points

by butILoveLife8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby thejohnconway8 hours ago|
next
[-]
Maybe Americans don't really get this, but the Greenland stuff was a very, very big deal. The rest of NATO was staring down the barrel of the unthinkable: war with the United States. For what? Some lib owning? A bit of fun? A real estate deal? The sense of betrayal is very strong, more than the politicians are letting on.
reply
upvoteby IAmBroom3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The sane Americans get it. We know how important NATO is, and sovereignty of nations, and so on. We get it.

We are in a state of permanent horror at what the voting majority has done, all to avoid voting a woman of color into office, to own the libs, to hate on brown-skinned people, etc., ad nauseum. Votes against today, instead of towards tomorrow. Hatred and fear as prime motivations.

reply
upvoteby tbihl7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The Diego Garcia stuff is a very, very big deal. I think it's unreasonable to draw the comparison between the exceptionally short-sighted Brits and the uncommonly prudent Danes. But hypothesizing Trump Tower Thule as the motive is ridiculous.
reply
upvoteby thejohnconway7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't understand your comment.
reply
upvoteby tbihl7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Diego Garcia is an island of exceptional strategic importance to the West. When it eventually gets granted to a client state of China, that will steadily degrade the effectiveness of bases there. I expect slower movement than the time the UK promised to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens, but that is a matter of degree.

I am not aware of Denmark giving meaningful control of Greenland to China or Russia, nor or any plans to push the US out: therefore, while I think the principle is worth considering, I find it to be a small concern not worth angering allies over.

Does that answer your statement of confusion?

reply
upvoteby thejohnconway7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don’t see how it relates very well to what I said. I think you’re trying to say the that the Chagos island lease disagreement is as big a deal as threatening to invade a NATO ally.

I disagree.

reply
upvoteby arethuza7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"exceptionally short-sighted Brits"

Probably something along the lines of "nice nuclear deterrent shame if it was to stop working" or "nice carriers, shame if the only aeroplanes that can fly from them stopped working"....

reply
upvoteby usefulcat7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> a populist demagogue who was promoted by russia

American voters witnessed this demagogue incite a riot in an attempt to steal an election, and after that 2/3 of them still couldn't be bothered to vote against him.

As an American myself, blaming Americans for this situation seems pretty fair.

reply
upvoteby swasheck7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> happy to stop the freebies we give other nations.

but indignant when other nations return in kind.

reply
upvoteby argomo8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Note that populist demagogue started a trade war and threatened allies with invasion. That tends to put a damper on friendship. And that's before the idiotic blunder with Hormuz.
reply