[luser007]

Arguing that "it's okay to do it because the others do it as well" is kindergarten-level argumentation.

A key factor in a friendly relationship is to be able to tell your friend "no" without him/her getting angry. If one of the people in a relationship is forced to be subservient at all times we normally call it an abusive relationship.

And I think you kinda missed the point: Danish politicians have done everything in their power to please the US since the 1960s and have done so increasingly since Bill Clinton was president. That's fine, if they told the populace that is what they're doing. Instead what they're doing is making hidden agreements with the US, that includes spying on our closest allies and neighbours (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...) all the while they tell the Danish people that it is impossible to say if Americans are spying in Denmark.

If it is such a great benefit to Denmark to act as a lap dog for the US, you would think the Danish politicians was proud of it, wouldn't you?

[jollybean]

"Arguing that "it's okay to do it because the others do it as well" is kindergarten-level argumentation."

?

Saying "Americans are evil because I heard something on the news and am going to assume a bunch of facts" is 'Kindergarten Arguing'.

...

"A key factor in a friendly relationship is to be able to tell your friend "no" without him/her getting angry. If one of the people in a relationship is forced to be subservient at all times we normally call it an abusive relationship."

This is a glib conflation of pop culture relationship psychology, with realpolitik nature of geopolitical relations.

...

"And I think you kinda missed the point: Danish politicians have done everything in their power to please the US"

I think you 'missed the point' by making broad, fabricated assumptions about a) what exactly Danish politicians are doing, b) the benefits received on either side and c) the materiality of the requests made by the US.

You don't know what was asked for and received from either side, nor the benefits to either party.

...

'Adult Argumentation' is the recognition of the material facts of the situation, of which there are many including the fact that Denmark is small and relatively weak, does not have the scale to work on a lot of defence and intelligence initiatives, it has to partner with 'good neighbours' on a variety of issues, and that Denmark deploys intelligence capabilities, including spying, like every other state.

If Denmark is a 'lapdog' of any state, it's by far and away the lapdog of Germany which de-facto dictates monetary policy (Kroner is issued by DK but is pegged i.e. controlled by ECB), EU level migration, unilaterally makes dumb energy deals with the Russians giving them tremendous leverage and putting everyone at risk, to the point where once again, ironically, the Americans, literally as we speak are having to step in to protect all of you, almost 80 years after WW2 ended. And so many other things.

Thankfully, Danish and other European politicians have developed good relations with the US such that US support on issues such as Ukraine and Russian expansion are going to be well mitigated.

To put that in context, the US is providing a huge layer of security for Denmark, in exchange for what, exactly? For helping the US track down a corrupt politician using surveillance? Seems like a pretty good deal. Who is who's lapdog now?

[luser007]

This is quite silly. On oh so many levels. Your rant about Denmark being the lapdog of EU (and by extension Germany) is hilarious. You might not know it, but there has actually been a number of referendums in Denmark on our association with EU (1972, 1986, 1992, 1993, 2014, 2015).

I don't recall any referendums on the NSA cooperation.

...

On one point you're very right, though: I don't know the details of the deal made between the Danish defence intelligence agency and NSA. I sure would love to (the same goes for the Danish public), so please let me in on the details!

...

You seem unwilling to accept, that the actions performed by politicians is not always in the interest of the people they're supposed to serve. This is quite weird. An US analogy would be, that it is obvious that Pelosi or Trump are more concerned about their private fortunes than the interest of the American public.

And as I said: If the Danish politicians thought this cooperation to be in the best interest of the Danes, they could announce it publicly. "We let NSA tap our data, because they in return sometimes provides tips to us on homegrown terrorists and threats to Danish interests in the Middle-East". It is strange that it is not even possible for them to acknowledge the existence of an agreement. Why all this cloak and dagger when it is so obviously a great benefit for the country as you make it out to be?