[mp05]

“Threatened”? That’s a stretch. From the AP:

“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, when asked if he would rule out the use of the military. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” He added, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.”

This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd. I’m not a fan of this kind of rhetoric, but Europeans acting like this is a genuine military threat instead of just laughing at him is ridiculous.

Anyways, what were we talking about? Something inspirational I recall.

[seanmcdirmid]

> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd.

It used to be posturing and blustering around acquiring territories was absurd.

People are hysterical because they aren’t sure if Trump is being serious or if he just is sh*t talking. Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.

[mp05]

I encourage you to read the recent Reuters article on the topic: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-says-it-has-no-plans-increa...

Danish PM Frederiksen: "I cannot imagine the United States would use military intervention in Greenland, and it is up to the people of Greenland to decide what they want."

Oh, interesting. I think that’s called self-determination, a key underpinning of democracy.

> Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.

Greenland is a critical strategic asset, and Denmark is incapable of defending it or its people. If Greenlanders are worried about being "invaded" by the U.S., they should be a hell of a lot more worried about Russia or China making moves in the Arctic. The world would objectively be safer if the U.S. took custodianship of Greenland, full stop.

I’m no policy buff, but I’d bet that if someone were willing to make a rational deal, like perhaps allowing the U.S. to offer security in exchange for a slice of Greenland’s massive untapped resources, this entire situation would be resolved, and everyone would be better off.

Again, I stress that the rhetoric around what is clearly a negotiation is not my style of doing business, but no serious person can argue that something has to be done about securing Greenland, nor do they think Trump is actually going to use military force.

Edit: I must insist that I'm not trying to be inflammatory at all. I'm sincerely concerned about this geopolitical implications of this potential attack vector and it feels like pride is getting in the way of our security in the West.

[mmooss]

> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague.

Still not taking him seriously? He's followed through on many boundry-destroying actions in just a week, not to mention the prior 8 years. Remember the raid on the Capitol to stop ratification of the election, and he just pardoned the attackers.

I think people are afraid to take him seriously.