politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Actually, they don't.
When Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to USA in 1916-1917, part of that deal was to ratify that USA accepted the full Danish ownership of Greenland.
At the time, this was done to keep Norway from making claims to Greenland.
But anyway, we quite literally have a document written by USA and signed by USA stating that Denmark alone owns Greenland.
Edit: Took some time to find, but here it is signed by U.S Secretary of State Robert Lansing who made the deal under President Woodrow Wilson.
I don't think this administration gives a shit about documents, precedent, or the rule of law.
They don't give a shit because nobody is holding them accountable. The rest of the western world is waiting for the American people to start holding their government accountable and it's just not happening.
It didn't happen in Germany or Japan even after they were firebombed and / or nuked.
People really don't like holding power - even the formerly poweful - to account; and people in power generally don't like it either (unless it suits them).
I suspect it's partly because doing so would lead to the obvious question: who gave then the power in the first place?
You are making some pretty wild statements.. those in power don’t actually like holding power? That is a bonkers statement to me. The people who SHOULD have the power never do, because they simply don’t want the power. I can maybe see that, but the people in this day and age that HAVE the power? Most definitely want it, in fact I’d argue they want even more. Gluttonous savage pigs that they are. Will consume and consume and consume until someone puts a stop to it.
They said that people don't like holding power to account
Ah. So they did.
Yep 😀
He's not arguing we have some 'legal' right, he's arguing that since we have a military, we can do whatever we want wherever we want so long as no one is able to successfully stop us...
He's giving some serious Hitler vibes. Also, Thrasymachus.
He's also basically saying that if anyone is capable of violently overthrowing the US, then they have a right to do so.
Also, dismissing international treaties as "niceties" comes very close to treason, as he's basically saying to disregard the laws as they were written by constitutional authority.
If legal documents no longer count for anything, then neither does the constitution. That would mean the US government has no legal authority.
It's a dangerously slippery slope, but I think he's lusting for the chaos that would result.
He's also asking what right Denmark has to it, which is what I addressed. USA gave us that right.
I don't really think they're going to do anything just now. USA can already have all the military they want on Greenland. They're the ones who are supposed to protect it, so if they choose to attack, what the hell are they supposed to attack? The snow?
It would basically mean that they withdraw from NATO, which is a bit over the top for putting a flag in the snow in an area they already control.
I think that it's all a distraction. They're probably going for a surprise attack in Panama any day now.
If nobody fights back, it means everyone has withdrawn from NATO.
I guess in the CNN interview he said that? I just read the article, which would make me think his response would simply be "Well Denmark's smaller military means they have no rights".
But you are absolutely right that USA can pretty much already stage whatever military presence they want in Greenland so long as everyone can rationalize it as supporting NATO objectives, which would generally rubber stamp Greenland. The 'we need Greenland for defense' rings hollow with that.
However, I think the military is an excuse, and they really want:
They see a significant land mass with fewer than 100k as a cakewalk, from a force perspective, and given their 'might makes right' philosophy, it could be a likely next stepping stone.
I feel this thing needs to be shared all over the place. Like massively.
So you signed a piece of paper. A treaty with a nation that broke treaties (with native Americans) since the start of its existence and you expect a century old piece of paper with a country that has been breaking treaties for twice that long to be worth anything?
Lol
Might want to ask the indigenous people how effective pieces of paper are at holding back the US military.
If you can't trust the agreements that a government makes, what good is that government.
Some might think it's cool that the current administration don't give a shit and is all about action over words, but it's not going to be pretty when they themselves rely on words.
Great
When the bombs start dropping, don't forget to wave this piece of paper at them, I'm sure they'll care
That's the point Steven Miller was trying to make. Don't give it validity. The international community must insist on following the law, as it's written on paper.
Dropping bombs where?
The only military presence on Greenland is already the American NATO base. Everyone else up there are civilians.
They're gonna bomb the snow just for the fuck of it?
The whole thing is absurd. It's a distraction.
By even suggesting that these people might have a point, you're playing right into their hands.
🤓🫱🦋 Is this toilet paper?