Greenland / Trump nonsense.

BlueRockape said:
Starmer being called to not let the USA use Britain as an aircraft carrier to invade Greenland.
I bet he will let them
Click to expand...
It’s nearer from the US mainland to Greenland than it is from the UK so it would make no sense to use the UK.
Starmer being called to not allow something that common sense would say wouldn’t happen anyway is a bit of a wasted effort.
 
I have long been an advocate for leaving NATO as it always appeared to be a tool used for American capitalist exploitation and imperialism.

Now i find myself in the curious position of supporting NATO because its the only means of opposing American capitalist exploitation and imperialism.

Trump is a lunatic, his ego is enormous and i think he is quite thick. He is scary though because he is thick, he has nuance, he does not think logically, he thinks of power and money.

The world is in a dangerous place right now because of a egomaniacal narcissistic, solipsistical man child.
 
lyonfish said:
Greenland is huge, but a very hostile place so most of the population live along the south coast, if the population was compliant the US could control it with minimal forces. However the reaction to Trumps scheme by Greenlanders has been extremely hostile, and Denmark has also given an emphatic no. So the US would likely have to take it by force, you would think this would be no more than a formality for them, that they would just have to turn up. But I don't think it's so easy, pretty much any practical route either by air or sea would require them to cross into Canadian territory, given Canada's stance in supporting Denmark's position, they would likely deny the US permission to cross their borders, if the US attempted to ignored this it would bring them into potential conflict with not only Denmark but Canada as well. This scenario would risk the lives and safety of US servicemen and I would expect Trump's military advisors to strongly argue against it. I think military force is very unlikely (but not impossible) as I don't think Trump wants a war (they're expensive!). There is nothing the US could gain in Greenland that they don't already have access to, so Trump must have some other motive, I suspect he knows the whole thing is a none starter, but he thinks there's some domestic political mileage in making a noise about it. He'll likely get some minor concession from the Danes, probably a mineral rights deal that he could probably get anyway, and claim it as major diplomatic victory.
Click to expand...
He needs to be in a war to get a 3rd and possibly indefinite ongoing term, he can then suspended elections as america is on a war footing.
 
kippaxwarrior said:
The mad twat is actually going to do it isn't he?

BBC News - US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military - White House
www.bbc.co.uk

US discussing options to acquire Greenland including using military - White House

It came as European allies rallied behind Denmark, which is pushing back against Trump's ambitions for the Arctic island.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
No, I really don't think so.
Trump threatens shit as a possibility but essentially he's a business man not a warmonger.
The possible military threat is used to strengthen his arm so a financial deal can more easily happen in his/American favour.

As for Europe protecting Greenland, they would probably boycott the world cup as a protest. :)
 
Bill Walker said:
No, I really don't think so.
Trump threatens shit as a possibility but essentially he's a business man not a warmonger.
The possible military threat is used to strengthen his arm so a financial deal can more easily happen in his/American favour.

As for Europe protecting Greenland, they would probably boycott the world cup as a protest. :)
Click to expand...
He only thinks he’s a businessman. Pretty much every business venture of his over the last 40 years has failed with many leading to bankruptcies and most leaving other people losing out either as investors, employees or contractors. This record of failure hasn’t stopped him thinking he’s the world’s greatest deal maker but he uses simplistic ploys involving threatening other parties so they’ll settle for something not quite as bad. Most people who deal with him recognise him for the gullible idiot that he is and use a bit of flattery to get what they want whilst leaving him thinking he’s got a great deal. Something along those lines will probably happen with Greenland whereby the Danes grant some American miners some mineral rights which they could have got quite easily anyway.
 
Bill Walker said:
No, I really don't think so.
Trump threatens shit as a possibility but essentially he's a business man not a warmonger.
The possible military threat is used to strengthen his arm so a financial deal can more easily happen in his/American favour.

As for Europe protecting Greenland, they would probably boycott the world cup as a protest. :)
Click to expand...
He's been doing quite a lot of bombing for someone who isn't a warmonger!
 
BlueRockape said:
Starmer being called to not let the USA use Britain as an aircraft carrier to invade Greenland.
I bet he will let them
Click to expand...
They used to have a base here……Starmer won’t say no to anything Trump demands, we had personnel on the aircraft carrier that attacked Venezuela, we don’t vote for it and government decisions give us a bad reputation around the world.
 
west didsblue said:
He only thinks he’s a businessman. Pretty much every business venture of his over the last 40 years has failed with many leading to bankruptcies and most leaving other people losing out either as investors, employees or contractors. This record of failure hasn’t stopped him thinking he’s the world’s greatest deal maker but he uses simplistic ploys involving threatening other parties so they’ll settle for something not quite as bad. Most people who deal with him recognise him for the gullible idiot that he is and use a bit of flattery to get what they want whilst leaving him thinking he’s got a great deal. Something along those lines will probably happen with Greenland whereby the Danes grant some American miners some mineral rights which they could have got quite easily anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get into this debate on Trump's business acumen Didsy as this thread is about his actions over Greenland which I was focused on but Ultimately, the assessment of his business acumen often depends on whether one focuses on his ability to build a powerful personal brand and accumulate vast wealth or on the profitability and ethical practices of his individual ventures and his performance relative to the broader market.
I disagree that all his ventures have failed. Despite some business failures, his overall net worth has grown over his career, currently estimated by Forbes at around $4 billion, suggesting a long-term financial success.
 
Bill Walker said:
I don't want to get into this debate on Trump's business acumen Didsy as this thread is about his actions over Greenland which I was focused on but Ultimately, the assessment of his business acumen often depends on whether one focuses on his ability to build a powerful personal brand and accumulate vast wealth or on the profitability and ethical practices of his individual ventures and his performance relative to the broader market.
I disagree that all his ventures have failed. Despite some business failures, his overall net worth has grown over his career, currently estimated by Forbes at around $4 billion, suggesting a long-term financial success.
Click to expand...
I would politely suggest most of his current wealth is down to corruption of the highest order and the price of tulips!
 
Bill Walker said:
I don't want to get into this debate on Trump's business acumen Didsy as this thread is about his actions over Greenland which I was focused on but Ultimately, the assessment of his business acumen often depends on whether one focuses on his ability to build a powerful personal brand and accumulate vast wealth or on the profitability and ethical practices of his individual ventures and his performance relative to the broader market.
I disagree that all his ventures have failed. Despite some business failures, his overall net worth has grown over his career, currently estimated by Forbes at around $4 billion, suggesting a long-term financial success.
Click to expand...
Why would any logical person accept the definition of "net wealth" from a private individual already found civilly liable in a court of law for inflating the value of assets for insurance purposes?

You would have as dumb as dryer lint to take that on its face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top