And this is the reason why we should point out this reason for not going to war. There are a whole lot of Americans who can’t wrap their heads around history, or geopolitical maneuvering, or other complex topics. MAGA, for instance. But maybe they can wrap their heads around “If you do this, they cut off your drugs, moron.”
It’s clear that MAGA will not respond to coherent, well-thought out arguments that consider every aspect of the situation, because none of that has worked despite nearly a decade of us explaining it to them. So we might as well try the simplistic appeal to their own needs. Can’t really make things worse, and it might make things better.
FWIW it was never my intention to reply to your post. I think I clicked the wrong “Reply” icon.
I did think the article from the Russian newspaper I quoted should be of interest. It’s almost TOO perfect an example of trying to influence a silly incompetent President. Did that really appear in a Russian newspaper or is that fake news?
Probably goes without saying, but please leave off the last word. It may be true that they’re dumb as a box of rocks, but it’s far more important to bring them along than it is to vent spleen. I am convinced that there’s a nontrivial number of folks who could be persuaded to leave the cult if we can convince them that they’ll be welcomed for doing so.
Yes, I completely agree, and I don’t believe even the cowaRds in Congress would allow it if trump tries to go the ‘legal’ route and get permission. But what if trump just goes ahead and gives the order to invade Greenland without informing Congress, like he just did with the Venezuelan action? That might spur Congress to take action against trump after the fact, and maybe an impeachment would be followed by an actual conviction in the Senate in that case. But by then, the damage will have already been done.
I wonder how that would go down if trump bypassed Congress and decided to go ahead and give the military the order to invade Greenland. Would the generals go along with it, or refuse the order? Attacking a NATO ally would seem to be the very definition of an unlawful order. If the generals refused, what then?
Worse yet, if the generals complied, what then? Are we in a full-on war with our NATO allies? I assume that then Europe would also take drastic economic actions which would cripple our economy. Russia and China would be gleefully watching from the sidelines, ready to take advantage of the chaos and power vacuum. It would make a shit-show boring by comparison.
This is a struggle for me personally, because a large part of me would gleefully shout FAFO to them, They made their beds, now sleep in it. I know that’s a childish and unhelpful impulse, but it’s a pretty common one and it will be hard to overcome for many people.
Also, it’s kind of contemptibly timid and snowflakey for MAGA types experiencing buyer’s remorse to be unwilling to face up to their actions unless they get an assurance that they’re pre-forgiven.
“Yes I supported a bunch of stupid and evil wannabe dictators doing a shit-ton of irresponsible and harmful stuff, but if I go over to the other side then somebody might make me feel bad about my previous support, so I guess I’ve got no choice but to go on supporting them!”
Look, I get that that’s a very human and universal form of frailty, but it sits especially ill on those swaggering would-be tough-guy conservatives who’ve been constantly chest-thumping about how courageous and rugged they are. “Party of Personal Responsibility”, my ass.
I know what you mean here, but I’ll disagree somewhat that this is an unhelpful impulse. I believe that one of the biggest mistakes liberals make is to protect people from the consequences of their own actions and thus they never learn to change their ways or thinking. Often this is because the consequences don’t just fall on those responsible so the best thing to do is to protect everyone, especially in an increasingly interconnected world, but that feeling that people should be allowed to play stupid games and win stupid prizes isn’t entirely incorrect.
I get that it grates, and I get that people should face the consequences for their actions. However, those are not the cards in play right now. I would far rather have people remove their support from Trump without consequence, than continue to support Trump for fear of the consequences.
I think that conservatives who are forced to do without their meds will face the consequences of their actions regardless of whether we call them stupid.
I get what you mean, but the split of diabetics in America between liberals and conservatives is probably close to 50-50. If America went to war with Denmark and Denmark cut off insulin to the USA as a result, it’s not just MAGA diabetics who’d suffer.
All true and I’m sure we all agree this is not the occasion to give in to that urge. I’m just saying that the general notion of “let them FAFO then” is neither childish nor unhelpful and needs to be incorporated into liberal thought.
Right now, American annexation of Greenland polls poorly in the U.S. But this is under circumstances where lots of Americans imagine conquest would require a difficult war.
Suppose the war ends in a short decisive American victory, as seems highly plausible to me. U.S. public opinion will then turn. Giving Greenland its freedom would be morally and strategically correct but, in the U.S., politically disastrous.
The most recent precedent I recall, where a country conquered another and quickly gave it back despite no military necessity, is with the Mongols withdrawing from Europe in 1241 after the Khan died. In modern times, it works differently.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, but the reason I would not go to war with Denmark is because the Danes are descendents of Vikings. I only know very few, but I would not take them on in a bar fight, let alone in a snowy, rocky land mass in which they would be in their element.
Not to mention the native Greenlandic people, who would be able to fight a guerrilla war like the Finnish in WW2… It would be a disaster for the US in every possible way.