rsemmes
Active Member
Oh! Tariffs and the threat of invasion doesn't count as "victim"? More like... A happy participant?
NATO
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I'm against applying force against an ally. So that means you're in favor?
I still think it's implausible but a lot of people here think, with no ability to draw a simple logical path, that the US is taking anything by force. You're talking about it as if it's a done deal but there are negotiations. Negotiations.
And yeah the US definitely has the right to negotiate with Norway and Iceland. Norway and Iceland also have the right to negotiate. Otherwise you're saying they don't have the right to free speech.
You know what can happen when you negotiate? "No" for an answer. Also "Yes" for an answer.
Why would the P-8 be turned against the US? Is this part of your line about using force against allies? Because I genuinely think, and no disrespect, but it's a stupid idea.
And why would there be no US support for the P-8? It's very common to contract a long term maintenance and spare parts for major platforms.
For as long as you refuse to answer this question, I know that you do not support negotiations, and that you view using force against allies positively, so I can assume you support an American hostile takeover of Greenland. And to that I say it's absolutely foolish.
Hey, you know, colonialism was actually delegalized about 80 years ago. And yet Greenland is effectively a colony of Denmark on the American continent. Isn't this a violation of international law? I think it is.
See how this can be turned around? And I'm not joking, it was delegalized via unitary law.
Then no nation needs laws because they are frequently changed. That's how we make The Purge happen IRL.
Except it's not and you're perverting everything I said.
If you are such a knight of international law, why do you oppose a nation's right to self defense? That is also enshrined in international law. So how do you pick and choose what you like and what you don't?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If rare earths exist in quantities that are useful then I suspect local processing locally would be preferred, leaving all the toxic waste in Greenland instead of America.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Probably cheapest to mine and process in the US. I see no reason to look elsewhere. It's not like they're literally rare.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So apparently you don’t see any issues regarding environmental expenditures with processing in the US? Also, the shipment of raw ore will be more expensive albeit perhaps not an issue vs processed rare earths as ocean freight is cost effective.
If the US is stupid enough to take over Greenland against the wishes of its people and by military force it means, at the very minimum,
A, the end of NATO,
B. the end of the wider Western alliance; public opinion in places like Canada, the UK and Australia would see to that,
C. the end of any pretence that the US might have to respecting democracy,
D. the end of any remaining US political and moral dominance of the world, and
E. the replacement of the US by China as the most influential player on the world stage.
It would, to say the least, be counter productive. Regrettably, I’m not sure the current leadership in the US appreciates that.
A, the end of NATO,
B. the end of the wider Western alliance; public opinion in places like Canada, the UK and Australia would see to that,
C. the end of any pretence that the US might have to respecting democracy,
D. the end of any remaining US political and moral dominance of the world, and
E. the replacement of the US by China as the most influential player on the world stage.
It would, to say the least, be counter productive. Regrettably, I’m not sure the current leadership in the US appreciates that.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree. and I would add that the USD will likely no longer be a goto safe currency, meaning the US will have a harder time managing their massive debt, BRIC might attract first world countries.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As I said before, get a refresh before saying non-sense.
Overseas Countries and Territories
Thirteen Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are associated with the European Union.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
If you claim colonies are legal, then you're actually proving my point.You have no idea what you're talking about.
As I said before, get a refresh before saying non-sense.
Overseas Countries and Territories
Thirteen Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are associated with the European Union.www.eeas.europa.eu
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
I claim you have no idea what you're talking about and it seems to me that you are proving that to everyone here in this discussion.
Greenland is not a colony. It's an associated territory of the EU, or if you prefer an oversea territory. Their citizens are EU citizens.
Governing structure is completely independent from Denmark apart from some matters that were negotiated from the early 80s to 2009.
The population of Greenland had the opportunity to vote several times and they have the right to become independent from Denmark as decided in the new Government structure of 2009.
They are an european oversea country and its population has EU citizenship because they want so.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
@SolarisKenzo I am familiar with Newspeak and that is not an argument.
That is utter nonsense, & malevolent nonsense. The issue here is the right to dself-determination of the Greenlanders. They do not want to be a colony of the USA.
All other arguments which go against that principle are bollocks.
You seem to be trolling now.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I do not think it is in any way good to conflate misunderstanding with trolling.
If you do not understand, you can ask.
How do you know what they want or don't want?
You call me a malevolent troll and yet I seem to be the only one here who understands that there is currently negotiations and that negotiation conclusions are typically known only when concluded.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Greenland has a constitutional right to declare independece and secede if they want to.
They chose, with several votes starting from the 80s, to be an Associated territory of the EU and to retain EU citizenship.
Stop trolling please, anyway I'm done talking to a troll. Wish a good continuation of the discussion.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
How is that in any way related to anything I said?
Can you please carry a logical path?
Then why did you respond to me?
rsemmes
Active Member
Remaining what? After invading Nicaragua, Iraq of after the Iran-Contra? Maybe you mean after this: ''Donald Trump has said “I don’t need international law” and that his power is limited only by his “own morality”. In a new interview with the New York Times, Trump said the only constraint to his power as president of the US is “my own morality, my own mind”.'