View Single Post
Old
  (#77)
Alan
AzB Silver Member
Alan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2005
   
08-22-2019, 12:40 PM

I cringe by a lot of what Trump says. However, I agree with him in his "nasty" comment. Denmark's official reply about the purchase of Greenland was that it was "absurd". That's a nasty reply. the Prime Minister drew first blood.

The U.S. has leases for 73 years and you think it's bizarre that maybe instead a lease it should be looked at as an acquisition. Is there a single reason why the U.S. would want to abandon it's position in Greenland? Ever? No. Why not look into a purchase? It makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me if Denmark said "no thank you, we prefer to fleece you through leases into the future forever."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
That was my point, to counter your point claiming the opposite, as I read it.

It has not been any constant or even periodic goal of the US to buy it. It has been our goal to have access to basing there as of WW II, through the Cold War and to current times. And we have maintained constant access, via the lease arrangements allowed, for more than 73 years.

This current strange idea was leaked by administration insiders because they found it bizarre. They were stunned when he first raised it, thought he might not be serious about it, but then he kept raising it over the past six weeks. So the leak was probably to try to assure he didn't raise it in Denmark, or at least, to preview it to them so it wouldn't catch them unprepared and gobsmacked.

He responded to questions about the leak by saying, yes, it was being considered, but it would not be the first order of business and not the most important thing.

Then when the PM said it wouldn't be considered and that it was an absurd idea, he thanked her for saving everyone a waste of time, canceling the trip altogether. As if that was indeed the most important thing about the trip, and if it would not be favorably received, there was no other reason to go.

This was a formal state visit, that had been long in the planning. He was to meet the Danish royal family as well as the PM within a few weeks, and Denmark had prepared a five star welcome and planned the massive security required. He brusquely canceled all of it without any apparent reason except for the word that Greenland isn't for sale (which no one seriously thought it was), and called the PM's comment 'nasty' (his favorite complaint reserved for women). He feigns shock and outrage over very small slights, when that is his own stock in trade.

Denmark is a formal long-time ally, and a reliable one, which has lost blood and dead soldiers in support of the US in our misguided quagmire wars. Anyone who can defend there is any reason for causing strained relations with them, and particularly over this bullsh!t, is showing sycophantic cult of personality irrationality.
  
Reply With Quote