- Oct 2, 2020
- 30,449
- 16,267
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
how far is trump to go for greenland
- Thread starter loveofourlord
- Start date
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,918
- 5,129
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,918
- 5,129
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
yes, something is seriously wrong. So?
Yes, he US and world would be better without Trump's bullying rhetoric.
========
HOWEVER, the US and the world will be much, much less safe with the US keeping its current military situation in Greenland and allow the Russians and Chinese to continue in their efforts to control the Arctic. It is CLEARLY in the interest of the US, Canada, Greenland, the UK, the EU and NATO for the US to have a greaer military presence in Greenland, for the US to start a mining industry in Greenland , and for the US to protect Arctic shipping lanes, much as we now protect those in the Middle East.
=========
Trump has an enormous disadvantage. He is an old man with limited time available as a powerful bully. He will do all he can in the next 3 years, but starting Biden-type diplomacy that might take a decade is NOT an acceptable method for Trump.
NOR SHOULD IT BE!
=====
As an aside, I am a centrist US Democrat and have been for over 65 years.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,918
- 5,129
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,273
- 2,509
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Doubt it, EU can barely supply Ukraine and good luck attacking America with NATO navy.
Upvote
0
7thKeeper
Venture life, Burn your Dread
- Jul 8, 2006
- 2,726
- 2,564
- Country
- Finland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
... And? I'm sorry, but how does threatening the use of force help in this situation exactly, except by making Greenland and Denmark antagonistic towards the US, thus making any enlargement of US presence there less likely? And this also completely ignores Trump saying he wants Greenlands resources.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 23,256
- 19,145
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
The agreements with Denmark leave the size of the US military presence in Greenland entirely at the prerogative of the US. If we want more personnel at existing facilities, issue orders and off they go to man them. If we want new military facilities, or to revive any of the ones we abandoned post cold war, effectively all that is required is a formal notification of what's going to take place. There's no upside to this fools errand of taking over the territory by whatever means.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 30,449
- 16,267
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 30,449
- 16,267
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Trump has not threatened Denmark. He just hasn't said "I will not use force". There's always so much hyperbole and melodrama when it comes to describing anything Trump says. Or in this case, even over what he hasn't said.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,918
- 5,129
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
So, rather than starting a discussion of the Arctic with Trump's usual bluster, you prefer that Trump not bother and simply send in 10 or 20K troops and point to the 1953 agreement.
Trump has done exactly ZERO similar to his threat of making Canada the 51st state (instead of DC or Puerto Rico).
===========
NATO needs to have this discussion and Trunp's views the best first step is the verbal threat of the consequences of NATO and Denmark doing nothing.
=========
Trump has made clear the importance of Greenland to the security of the US. This importance has been OBVIOUS to past presidence, but they continued to do absolutely nothing. Was their approach really better than that of Trump?
Presidents since WWII chose to focus on the Middle East and the need for the US to get them to choose US style democracies for their countries, very least to install governments that favored the US. This strategy was a huge, HUGE failure.
Trump chooses to focus on the security interests of the US and indicates that he is willing to enforce those interests. He chooses NOT send tens of thousands to fight.
=====
SO, THESE WERE BETTER PLACES TO SEND TROOPS IF NECESSARY
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
REALLY?
=========
Trump approach has simply been impolite. He can send troops at any time and not violate any "rules".
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 23,256
- 19,145
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
So, rather than starting a discussion of the Arctic with Trump's usual bluster, you prefer that Trump not bother and simply send in 10 or 20K troops and point to the 1953 agreement.
If the concern is that we need to increase our military presence in a region, that would be the logical thing to do.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 10,388
- 5,283
- 83
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
The problem is, Canada has decided to run their part of the Northern Warning Line on their own without US participation and Trump doesn't want our part to be on the territory of what he regards as an unfriendly foreign power.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 45,444
- 48,264
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
I don't understand your point. You started with "America wanting to establish a strategic foothold in Greenland"
Well, it already has one, yes, because it's a good location. What more do we need?
Denmark has expressed its willingness to have more US bases (as indeed there were in the past).
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,918
- 5,129
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
TO BE CLEAR
1) As has happened dozens of times, Trump has played his role as a bully and threatened an ally with consequences if he doesn't get his way.
2) Denmark is very much more reasonable than those posting here.
3) And none of this bullying is necessary with Denmark. In terms of military support, Denmark has been one of our most loyal allies (along with Australia, the UK and Canada.
DENMARK
has no intention of going to war and no intention of asking other to go to war because its pride is hurt over Greenland. They are much more civilized than that. They will negotiate with the bully, even if there is really no need. Denmark has little responsibility with regard to Greenland, only defense and foreign relations. The should and surely will give advice to their former colonial subjects in Greenland.
FRANCE
looks silly. They have threatened war if the US "invades" Greenland by greatly increases our military involvement.
1) As has happened dozens of times, Trump has played his role as a bully and threatened an ally with consequences if he doesn't get his way.
2) Denmark is very much more reasonable than those posting here.
3) And none of this bullying is necessary with Denmark. In terms of military support, Denmark has been one of our most loyal allies (along with Australia, the UK and Canada.
DENMARK
has no intention of going to war and no intention of asking other to go to war because its pride is hurt over Greenland. They are much more civilized than that. They will negotiate with the bully, even if there is really no need. Denmark has little responsibility with regard to Greenland, only defense and foreign relations. The should and surely will give advice to their former colonial subjects in Greenland.
FRANCE
looks silly. They have threatened war if the US "invades" Greenland by greatly increases our military involvement.
Upvote
0
is that why those in his cabinet are still in power and being just as bad? doesn't seem like it's any better, in fact some things show it's worse now.
Upvote
0
and canada did that due to constant threats from the US who has shown to be unreliable, we probably be quiet happy if we didn't think Trump use it against us.
Upvote
0
Yeah, and trumps gone after those countries, Canada no longer considers the US an ally and is already looking elsewhere for what we would do with the US.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 30,449
- 16,267
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I guess for some everything is going to be bad no matter what.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
