Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

What does Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland mean for the EU and NATO?

I mean, he didn't do anything to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, but no one cares anymore.

see what I mean?

I mean, he didn't do anything to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, but no one cares anymore. see what I mean?

@verylate said in #34:

How many Americans died to save Denmark from the Axis powers? 420,000? That number accords with what I have read elsewhere. How many of those died in the Pacific theatre? In North Africa, in Italy, in France, and crossing the Rhine into Germany? How many in tiny Denmark? Oh, and they all paid the highest price, wherever they paid it, just for Denmark. Not for anyone or anything else. Got it. And on the basis of this sacrifice, Denmark is supposed to hand over Greenland to the Americans as a thank you for keeping them safe. Hmm, The Soviets lost more than 11 million, and their war was largely confined to the European theatre. Even China lost about 1 and a third million. Perhaps Denmark should hand over Greenland to one of those for keeping them safe. Now that would be an appropriate thank you.

I stand corrected, yes you are correct, closer to 420K. 450K Brits.
Given the fact that the US didn't want in the war to begin with, where they died is more or less irrelevant. The mission was the stop the Germans, Japanese and Italians, which they did. The Germans occupied Denmark, and without the US entering the war and supplying virtually everything to the other allies, they were in deep dodo. That's not to say other countries didn't have vastly more deaths, but a good many of them were killed by their own.

The Japanese were well known for killing their own wounded if they were too much trouble to save. The Russians murdered so many of their own the numbers are incalculable. Stories abound about unarmed people sent into the front line expected to pick up a weapon from a dead person and continue on OR get shot by their own comrades when they attempt to return to the line, or if they didn't move 'fast enough'. Let's not even get started on Stalin's policies of murdering civilians, literally by the millions, using famine and exposure as the vehicle of death.

Take note, the US didn't gain any territory from WW2 other than the far east pacific ports they BOUGHT from the Brits with arms as payment. 50 Destroyers and countless cargo ships were given in payment for the use of some far east bases held by the Brits, none of which were materially populated. Might have been some escort carriers in that deal as well.

As to Thanking the Soviets, let's consider the alternatives that could have come to pass. How many of the conquered European countries did the US integrate into the 50 states? Hmm, none. How many of the Eastern European countries "Liberated" by the Soviets were handed back to the indigenous peoples? Ah, none eh? Ok, so, if it were not for the US and Britain allowing Denmark to exist once again, what do you think would have happened? Do you think the Russians would just give it back? Like they did Eastern Europe?

How about what the Brits wanted to do. They wanted to re-establish the colonial territories as British again but the US stopped them didn't they? Singapore, India, French Indochina (France), and on and on. All no longer colonial states because the US demanded as much. The "Empire"s shrunk.

But nice try. And good catch on the KIA stat.

@verylate said in #34: > How many Americans died to save Denmark from the Axis powers? 420,000? That number accords with what I have read elsewhere. How many of those died in the Pacific theatre? In North Africa, in Italy, in France, and crossing the Rhine into Germany? How many in tiny Denmark? Oh, and they all paid the highest price, wherever they paid it, just for Denmark. Not for anyone or anything else. Got it. And on the basis of this sacrifice, Denmark is supposed to hand over Greenland to the Americans as a thank you for keeping them safe. Hmm, The Soviets lost more than 11 million, and their war was largely confined to the European theatre. Even China lost about 1 and a third million. Perhaps Denmark should hand over Greenland to one of those for keeping them safe. Now that would be an appropriate thank you. I stand corrected, yes you are correct, closer to 420K. 450K Brits. Given the fact that the US didn't want in the war to begin with, where they died is more or less irrelevant. The mission was the stop the Germans, Japanese and Italians, which they did. The Germans occupied Denmark, and without the US entering the war and supplying virtually everything to the other allies, they were in deep dodo. That's not to say other countries didn't have vastly more deaths, but a good many of them were killed by their own. The Japanese were well known for killing their own wounded if they were too much trouble to save. The Russians murdered so many of their own the numbers are incalculable. Stories abound about unarmed people sent into the front line expected to pick up a weapon from a dead person and continue on OR get shot by their own comrades when they attempt to return to the line, or if they didn't move 'fast enough'. Let's not even get started on Stalin's policies of murdering civilians, literally by the millions, using famine and exposure as the vehicle of death. Take note, the US didn't gain any territory from WW2 other than the far east pacific ports they BOUGHT from the Brits with arms as payment. 50 Destroyers and countless cargo ships were given in payment for the use of some far east bases held by the Brits, none of which were materially populated. Might have been some escort carriers in that deal as well. As to Thanking the Soviets, let's consider the alternatives that could have come to pass. How many of the conquered European countries did the US integrate into the 50 states? Hmm, none. How many of the Eastern European countries "Liberated" by the Soviets were handed back to the indigenous peoples? Ah, none eh? Ok, so, if it were not for the US and Britain allowing Denmark to exist once again, what do you think would have happened? Do you think the Russians would just give it back? Like they did Eastern Europe? How about what the Brits wanted to do. They wanted to re-establish the colonial territories as British again but the US stopped them didn't they? Singapore, India, French Indochina (France), and on and on. All no longer colonial states because the US demanded as much. The "Empire"s shrunk. But nice try. And good catch on the KIA stat.

@Sweet-Child-In-Time @noflaps

can we get a justification about why trump is justified in being so disrespectful at the funeral of a fellow president, since he apparently can do no wrong ... he also refused to fly the flag at half mast in mar a lago

https://i.imgur.com/ikmaS1G.jpeg

@Sweet-Child-In-Time @noflaps can we get a justification about why trump is justified in being so disrespectful at the funeral of a fellow president, since he apparently can do no wrong ... he also refused to fly the flag at half mast in mar a lago https://i.imgur.com/ikmaS1G.jpeg

Guess what?
Tomorrow is the great day.

Guess what? Tomorrow is the great day.

@justme23 said in #44:

Guess what?
Tomorrow is the great day.

“Great”?

We will see for sure.

@justme23 said in #44: > Guess what? > Tomorrow is the great day. “Great”? We will see for sure.

@V1g1yy said in #17:

You wanna know why Greenland is 2.16M km2 and only has 56000 people? Because nobody in their right mind would want to be there... Just go look at Google Maps and check out "Street View" in Greenland. Lmao.
It's incredible how clueless you are. But also pretty typical of MAGA, as well as the lack of respect you show for the people that live there.

Trump isn't interested in Greenland for American people to settle there. It's about the oil, rare metals, and the geopolitics, stupid.

@V1g1yy said in #17: > You wanna know why Greenland is 2.16M km2 and only has 56000 people? Because nobody in their right mind would want to be there... Just go look at Google Maps and check out "Street View" in Greenland. Lmao. It's incredible how clueless you are. But also pretty typical of MAGA, as well as the lack of respect you show for the people that live there. Trump isn't interested in Greenland for American people to settle there. It's about the oil, rare metals, and the geopolitics, stupid.

Since global warming -- or, rather, "climate change" -- is racing ahead, will Denmark be around long enough to get any real use out of Greenland?

Some parts of Denmark are already several meters below sea level (gasp! how on Earth have they survived?), and even the highest portions aren't all that high. So, based on the fearful internet "articles" that many of us see every day, can we be sure there really will BE a Denmark in a few years?

I suppose the Danes COULD move to relatively elevated Greenland, since I believe it's part of their "realm." But can you picture a new Copenhagen high up on the slopes of Greenland? Somehow, I just can't. A little mermaid statue would seem out of place 3,000 meters up, in the snow.

Oh, I get it. Once the ocean rises, it might only be, say, 1,000 meters up or so.

Suddenly, the reluctance to do a deal begins to make real sense. If I were Danish, I'd drive a hard bargain, at least. We've all been repeatedly warned. Elevation is something I now hold dear!

Since global warming -- or, rather, "climate change" -- is racing ahead, will Denmark be around long enough to get any real use out of Greenland? Some parts of Denmark are already several meters below sea level (gasp! how on Earth have they survived?), and even the highest portions aren't all that high. So, based on the fearful internet "articles" that many of us see every day, can we be sure there really will BE a Denmark in a few years? I suppose the Danes COULD move to relatively elevated Greenland, since I believe it's part of their "realm." But can you picture a new Copenhagen high up on the slopes of Greenland? Somehow, I just can't. A little mermaid statue would seem out of place 3,000 meters up, in the snow. Oh, I get it. Once the ocean rises, it might only be, say, 1,000 meters up or so. Suddenly, the reluctance to do a deal begins to make real sense. If I were Danish, I'd drive a hard bargain, at least. We've all been repeatedly warned. Elevation is something I now hold dear!

@twighead said in #43:

@Sweet-Child-In-Time @noflaps

can we get a justification about why trump is justified in being so disrespectful at the funeral of a fellow president, since he apparently can do no wrong ... he also refused to fly the flag at half mast in mar a lago
apparently the cheerleaders would like to skip over this little bit of despicable behavior than to admit any distastefulness.

@twighead said in #43: > @Sweet-Child-In-Time @noflaps > > can we get a justification about why trump is justified in being so disrespectful at the funeral of a fellow president, since he apparently can do no wrong ... he also refused to fly the flag at half mast in mar a lago apparently the cheerleaders would like to skip over this little bit of despicable behavior than to admit any distastefulness.

@twighead said in #48:

apparently the cheerleaders would like to skip over this little bit of despicable behavior than to admit any distastefulness.
Maybe because it's completely off topic and has no relevance to the debate they're having.

@twighead said in #48: > apparently the cheerleaders would like to skip over this little bit of despicable behavior than to admit any distastefulness. Maybe because it's completely off topic and has no relevance to the debate they're having.

@Noflaps #47

I must ask:

Does it give you great pleasure to remain wilfully ignorant about the actual predictions climate scientists make?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet (this is but a starting point)
Do you just love to misrepresent and ridicule climate science by ludicrous exaggeration (there's probably not enough ice on Earth to melt into a 2 km thick spherical shell of inner radius 6371 km)? Just for the heck of it?

Because no matter the subject at hand, time and time again you keep bringing up something you clearly don't (want to) understand at all, namely sea level rise and climate change. It seems you're obsessed with it, in every second thread you find a way to shoehorn it in.
More than thirty years ago some politician (not an expert on the matter mind you!) said something you didn't agree with and you are still butthurt about it. And you have clearly refused to update your information about human-made climate change since then. And you have refused to listen to actual experts, to the IPCC, to every scientific society on Earth. They are all in overall agreement about human-caused climate change. And not because they like each other, not because scientists are famously quick to agree (they aren't), but because the evidence led them there.

You refuse to learn, you refuse to understand the problem. You think it manageable and apparently ridiculous (or at least worthy of your continual ridicule) and you try to keep it that way. You still pretend it's a joke and you will probably never stop pretending. You will probably never be earnest with yourself and you will probably never learn. From what I've read so far, you will probably never learn that sea level rise is neither the only nor the worst adverse effect of artificially reversing the slow climatic cooling trend of the past 50 million years in less than two centuries. Because that's what we will have done by 2100.

Not because you cannot learn it, not because you're not capable of understanding. You are certainly smart enough to understand. But because you do not want to. Because you simply refuse to. No matter how often it is pointed out to you.
Be my guest and refute my prediction. Prove me wrong.

The air-quotes you use around climate change are frankly ridiculous (as if it weren't changing or as if using multiple words to refer to different aspects of a problem were somehow disingenuous). And those air-quotes won't make it go away. You cannot fool nature. We can only study nature and openly report on what we find. Follow the evidence where it leads. Then it's up to all of us to draw conclusions from these findings and to assess problems and dangers that face our continued long-term prosperity (and survival). But not engaging with a problem or ridiculing it does not make magically go away.

@Noflaps #47 I must ask: Does it give you great pleasure to remain wilfully ignorant about the actual predictions climate scientists make? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet (this is but a starting point) Do you just love to misrepresent and ridicule climate science by ludicrous exaggeration (there's probably not enough ice on Earth to melt into a 2 km thick spherical shell of inner radius 6371 km)? Just for the heck of it? Because no matter the subject at hand, time and time again you keep bringing up something you clearly don't (want to) understand at all, namely sea level rise and climate change. It seems you're obsessed with it, in every second thread you find a way to shoehorn it in. More than thirty years ago some politician (not an expert on the matter mind you!) said something you didn't agree with and you are still butthurt about it. And you have clearly refused to update your information about human-made climate change since then. And you have refused to listen to actual experts, to the IPCC, to every scientific society on Earth. They are all in overall agreement about human-caused climate change. And not because they like each other, not because scientists are famously quick to agree (they aren't), but because the evidence led them there. You refuse to learn, you refuse to understand the problem. You think it manageable and apparently ridiculous (or at least worthy of your continual ridicule) and you try to keep it that way. You still pretend it's a joke and you will probably never stop pretending. You will probably never be earnest with yourself and you will probably never learn. From what I've read so far, you will probably never learn that sea level rise is neither the only nor the worst adverse effect of artificially reversing the slow climatic cooling trend of the past 50 million years in less than two centuries. Because that's what we will have done by 2100. Not because you cannot learn it, not because you're not capable of understanding. You are certainly smart enough to understand. But because you do not want to. Because you simply refuse to. No matter how often it is pointed out to you. Be my guest and refute my prediction. Prove me wrong. The air-quotes you use around climate change are frankly ridiculous (as if it weren't changing or as if using multiple words to refer to different aspects of a problem were somehow disingenuous). And those air-quotes won't make it go away. You cannot fool nature. We can only study nature and openly report on what we find. Follow the evidence where it leads. Then it's up to all of us to draw conclusions from these findings and to assess problems and dangers that face our continued long-term prosperity (and survival). But not engaging with a problem or ridiculing it does not make magically go away.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.