a) I know we make fun of Jeanine Pirro for being sloshed all the time, but has Maria always been this intoxicated sounding? She rambles a bit and then after the talking penis starts talking (she had an awkward pause), she jumps back in with a stumbling question.
b) I try not to body-shame, but sometimes it is hard not to. That guy is the closest representation to a talking penis I could imagine.
According to Wikipedia, Greenland only has a population of 56,831. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump solves any discontent with being conquered by deporting the whole population as"illegals".
I would be — if only because there almost always are some quislings he would let stay.
In World War II, Britain locked up Sir Oswald Mosley, reasonably seen as a potential quisling. While I’m generally a free speech absolutist, there are some wartime exceptions.
If you are saying that it is hopeless for Greenland, small countries sometimes surprise, and I would avoid defeatism
Wait, Trump is now trying to have an arch built on the Mall to commemorate himself? Of course he is. Egomaniac at large.
And imagine that, or looks just like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Except I assume he said “but bigger”.
Which is appropriate given Trump’s bigger butt.
And he has referred to this arch as an “arc”.
And the animals will pass under it in two by two singing après moi le déluge.
UK declines Trump’s request to help invade Greenland.
I didn’t expect this:
Danish forces will ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ if Greenland is invaded amid US threats
Now both prime ministers, Greenland and Denmark, need to say this over and over. Risky, yes, but I believe Trump can be deterred.
Hasn’t NATO said that they will close down all U.S. NATO military bases if the U.S. invades Greenland? Where’s the geopolitical advantage of seizing Greenland then, Fascist Trump?
“Too many syllables. Not a real word. I never heard of that. Must be some elitist woke B.S.”
The only reason he needs is 'cause he wants to. And it will make people forget about Epst–n.
NATO has NOT said they will close down any bases, much less all.
The Danish PM said “everything stops” in NATO if the U.S. invades Greenland. But Denmark didn’t say they would close down bases.
If Trump gets his way, I suppose the U.S. may close them down on its own. But I doubt the Europeans would try to stop the bases from staying open. They might prefer for any closing process to be extremely slow with hopes the Democrats get back in power before the bases are gone.
Or they may close them down as fast as possible due to them being a security threat.
Trump orders Army to make plans to invade Greenland.
Sources say that the policy ‘hawks’ around the US President, led by political adviser Stephen Miller, have been so emboldened by the success of the operation to capture Venezuela’s leader Nicolas Maduro that they want to move quickly to seize the island before Russia or China makes a move.
Re last post, are there really sources in the White House that talk to the Daily Mail off the record? I think they prefer the New York Times because it makes them feel important.
However, this could be. I presume the U.S. military has all sorts of plans for inadvisable missions. I’m alarmed about Greenland, but not more alarmed by that story.
May as in possible, I guess.
One barrier is that Trumpy parties are polling distressingly well in Germany, France, and the UK.
Another is that the national leaders are the opposite of reckless. They will hope against hope that the U.S. can bounce back.
The Europeans know that if they tried to force the bases to close, Trump might then change his mind about them on the principle of not being pushed around. And closing those bases by force would be a tremendous military operation at a time when a lot of their weapons production goes to the Ukrainian front.
Trump likes bombing. They cannot take the Is-Paris-Burning possibility of being bombed by the U.S. lightly. Better to let the U.S.keep the bases. Who knows, they could go back to being a tripwire against Russia some day.
After Maduro, they also have to fear being personally attacked. They can’t take the possibility of being kidnapped or killed in their beds lightly, either.
It would be fun to watch the locals freeze U.S. forces out. Refuse to serve them, refuse to sell anything to them, refuse to talk to them or acknowledge them at all. Unless to issue citations for every moving violation they commit off-base, or for littering… I could imagine Trump ordering foreign leaders to make their people more friendly.
There’s a line in a movie or a TV show where an authoritarian officer(?) is asked by his men, ‘What do you want?’ He says, ‘I want you to… like me.’
I think if the Europeans really wanted they could force the U.S. to close all or most of their bases, I doubt the U.S. is prepared to airlift supplies to all their bases constantly if the Europeans just close the roads and airports around them to U.S. supply traffic.
BUT.
The Europeans may not really want the bases gone, I believe they are important to the economy of the surrounding areas aaand they may want to wait and see the future post-Trump direction of the U.S. to evaluate if the bases can be understood as a security guarantee or the opposite.
“The Hill” is now just openly calling for Greenland to be conquered if Denmark won’t sell their land and their people like cattle.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5681672-greenland-power-politics-realism/
Everyone who laughed this off has a lot of egg on their face.
Googling, I see they published a few anti-takeover opinion articles last year. So it is not exactly that The Hill is calling for conquest, but that they take something so, well, evil, as just one opinion out of many.
About a year ago, they published a terrible but less evil proposal which I summarize as follows:
Give the Greenlanders a choice between military takeover (not stated explicitly, but implied as I read it), becoming an unincorporated territory like Guam, and free association with the U.S., like the Federated States of Micronesia. And it implies Greenlanders would pick free association.
If I was a Greenlander, free association with the United States sounds marginally worse than what I have now, but better than war with the U.S. With free association, Greenland gets to say it is an independent country, at least when Trump isn’t in the room. It gets a seat in the United Nations. And, if the association agreement is just like the existing ones, it gets to terminate the association with a one year notice – although I think they had better wait until there is a Democratic Party president to try that, and it may never make financial sense.
A disadvantage is that they would have to switch from the Danish Krone to the almighty dollar. Another is that, even if Trump pledges to continue Denmark’s subsidies, you cannot count on that continuing. But I wonder if free association is how this will play out.