I don't particularly care for your explanation, but if you do want to post these kind of comments at least explain yourself a bit so potentially a curious conversation can follow. Not doing so is arguably against this site's guidelines.
Can you please leave this comment on all the posts that state “we need to protest” or “look at the mad king” I don’t see any explanation or opportunity for curious conversation.
Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas.
I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years.
It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in.
We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.
Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.
I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.
> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US
I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.
Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
> I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US
You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you.
China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.
rpiguy|1 month ago
Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas.
I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years.
It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in.
We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.
throwaway89201|1 month ago
Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.
I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.
> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US
I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.
Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
ben_w|1 month ago
You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you.
China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.