The "Donroe" doctrine.

[Hafar1014]

How does Trump claim control of the Western Hemisphere while telling Russia and China they can’t do the same?

With military might

 

[Seymour Flops]

Western hemispheric dominance was a relic. To be replaced by GLOBAL dominance, just not militarily.

This shit is a NET LOSS to America's position.

Why do we need global dominance? What has it gotten us except the "privilege" of spending unbelievably large numbers of lives and large amounts of treasure defending Europe from itself and Asia from itself?

Venezuala operating as a drug empire with young Americans as the target for its addictive poisons is a far greater threat than Eastern Europeans carrying on a forever war over territorial disputes.

Question: are you aware that to vote in Greenland, one must be Danish?

 

[rightwinger]

With military might

We used to do things because it was right, not because of might

 

[Hafar1014]

We used to do things because it was right, not because of might

It was right backed up with might

 

[Cellblock2429]

Meh, I saw it as Big Stick diplomacy.

Maduro was asked to step down, didn't, and had the stick applied to him.

Done and done.

/----/ Don't taunt Trump.

 

[Bitterhook]

Why is there a need for the long game? When Trump is making it EXPLICIT that big nations simply have a right to take what they want.

After all that's Trump's position.

Let me make some predictions.

China will attack Taiwan. Likely before Trump's term ends.

The US won't lift a finger to defend them.

You will agree with that position.

There's no need to support a speculative position bias by what you would assume are the implications of actions seasoned generously with a maligned view of consequences supported more by your desire to believe that things will go contrary to anything worth supporting.

Talking to China about Tiawan does not protect Tiawan, because we have been doing that for quite some time, however ensuring China knows what we will do to protect our interests sends a different message. It does exert power and follows the paradigm of Peace Through Strength.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I am not going to jump to the worst-case scenario as the only option available. I will leave that kind of foolish optimism or lack thereof for you. Of course, I am not inclined to think America is a complete failure nor would I ever desire to entertain we the idea we are capable of handling up when necessary.

I mean there may be some folks in this country that would rather sit around and ***** than do anything, and fortunately they don't really amount to much at the moment.

Edit:
And, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the only reason "the long game" was successful for the Chinese, was because we allowed them to play the game and never did anything to actually stop them from play the game. Perhaps you would prefer playing games as a world view and policy, but that didn't work out our favor at all in that situation. The Chinese didn't even have to be strong. because our leaders were more comfortable sitting on the bench (paper tiger).

 

[Billiejeens]

It's also self-defeating. I'm European. He's openly threatening to take territory from Norway. And the reasons cited for it are laughable.

The US has the biggest Navy in the world and Greenland is in their backyard. Not only that but they already have a military precense. So the idea that Greenland not being in US hand is a national security threat is laughable.

Unless of course the national security interest is ownership of Greenland's recourses. But if that's what is meant then all recourses in ANY nation can be deemed in the US' security interests. It would justify war with anyone.

Now Trump and the Maga movement thinks they can simply bully through and that none of it will have consequences, but that's simply folly.

I don't doubt the US military can take Greenland by force. I also don't doubt that from that moment on the US will be considered a threat to Europe and it's allies and trade will probably cease altogether.

It would cost trillions to Europe and the US alike if not cause outright war.

In fact, of I'd be in the shoes of European, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian leaders I would seriously consider how to quickly divest from America and see what retaliatory options there are even now.

I don't know if you are grotesquely stupid, or just typically European.
No one is threatening to "take" any territory.

 

[Billiejeens]

Rubio: Trump Pushing Plan to Buy Greenland​

 

[Billiejeens]

Now the US taxpayer is paying to rebuild Venezuela's oil industry for oil company profit apparently.

actually, not apparently

 

[Bitterhook]

Perhaps Dotard wants a return of an era of regional hegemony with China, Russia, and the US each controlling their parts of the world. A new axis of evil.

President Trump removing Maduro from Venezuela, in no way favors Chinese or Russian interests.

Not to mention he did it the day after Maduro met with a Chinese Delegation to discuss a partnership, and Russia removed the two nuclear bombers they had based in Venezuela shortly after President Trump started blowing up drug boats. Iran is now in a hurt locker over their losses in Venezuelan interests, as are Hamas and Hezbollah.

And somehow, you think that all favors an Axis of Evil; not really sure who's side you are on, but thanks for sharing.

 

[rightwinger]

The "argument" for the US buying or taking Greenland is that it is in our national security interest, period.

Explain why we need to possess Greenland for our security?
We already have a base there

 

[kyzr]

Explain why we need to possess Greenland for our security?
We already have a base there

Read and learn...

Trump says the U.S. 'needs' Greenland for Arctic security. Here's why

Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Greenland’s own government also opposes U.S. designs on the island, saying the people of Greenland will decide their own future.

www.latimes.com

Why Greenland is strategically important to Arctic security

Greenland's strategic location above the Arctic Circle makes it a focal point in global security and trade debates.

apnews.com

Trump says the US ‘needs’ Greenland. Here are five reasons why

The island’s strategic location above the Arctic Circle makes it a focal point in global security and trade debates

www.independent.co.uk

 

[rightwinger]

Read and learn...

Trump says the U.S. 'needs' Greenland for Arctic security. Here's why

Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Greenland’s own government also opposes U.S. designs on the island, saying the people of Greenland will decide their own future.

www.latimes.com

Why Greenland is strategically important to Arctic security

Greenland's strategic location above the Arctic Circle makes it a focal point in global security and trade debates.

apnews.com

Trump says the US ‘needs’ Greenland. Here are five reasons why

The island’s strategic location above the Arctic Circle makes it a focal point in global security and trade debates

www.independent.co.uk

The US has had bases in Greenland since the 1950s
It was a US decision to cut back on those strategic bases and now has one left.
Greenland has always said we could reestablish military bases

Why do we need to take over Greenland to do that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/----/ Don't taunt Trump.
View attachment 1202530

Perfect synopsis of the insecurity and weakness of Trump and his cult.

 

[kyzr]

The US has had bases in Greenland since the 1950s
It was a US decision to cut back on those strategic bases and now has one left.
Greenland has always said we could reestablish military bases
Why do we need to take over Greenland to do that?

We won't need to get Denmark's approval for everything we do there, especially for mining for rare earth minerals.

 

[forkup]

Talking to China about Tiawan does not protect Tiawan, because we have been doing that for quite some time, however ensuring China knows what we will do to protect our interests sends a different message. It does exert power and follows the paradigm of Peace Through Strength.

The fact that Taiwan still exist puts a lie to that statement now doesn't it?

I don't have a crystal ball, but I am not going to jump to the worst-case scenario as the only option available. I will leave that kind of foolish optimism or lack thereof for you. Of course, I am not inclined to think America is a complete failure nor would I ever desire to entertain we the idea we are capable of handling up when necessary.

This part is muddled so I will respond to what I think you are saying. (If I'm wrong correct me: you don't believe tht America will abandon Taiwan and refuse to step up.)

The US under Trump is making clear in no uncertain terms that the administration doesn't give a flying **** about international law, Democracy, alliences, previous agreements, or morals. This is replaced by a simple concern about immediate naional interest as defined by one man. A man that has shown himself to be eminently transactional. The Chinese don't have a crystal ball either, so they don't know that the next adminstration will feel the same. So it makes sense for the to act under these circumstances and make a transaction.

You might believe that Trump is perceived as this strong leader abroad. I'm pretty sure the rest of the world perceives him as a malignant narcisist. This makes him upredictable in some ways. But also exploitable by people not hindered by morals.

There's no need to support a speculative position.

You might think this "I won't engage in speculation" bs gets you off the hook, the truth is it doesn't. This is a forum not a congressional hearing. You have no problem speculating. What you have a problem with is you needing to express an actual principle before Trump tells you what your principle should be. For the simple reason that you have none besides defending Trump.

 

[konradv]

We won't need to get Denmark's approval for everything we do there, especially for mining for rare earth minerals.

That’s the same reason Putin is going for Ukraine’s rare earths and China is going for Taiwan’s chips. Fine company!

 

[Bitterhook]

The fact that Taiwan still exist puts a lie to that statement now doesn't it?

This part is muddled so I will respond to what I think you are saying. (If I'm wrong correct me: you don't believe tht America will abandon Taiwan and refuse to step up.)

The US under Trump is making clear in no uncertain terms that the administration doesn't give a flying **** about international law, Democracy, alliences, previous agreements, or morals. This is replaced by a simple concern about immediate naional interest as defined by one man. A man that has shown himself to be eminently transactional. The Chinese don't have a crystal ball either, so they don't know that the next adminstration will feel the same. So it makes sense for the to act under these circumstances and make a transaction.

You might believe that Trump is perceived as this strong leader abroad. I'm pretty sure the rest of the world perceives him as a malignant narcisist. This makes him upredictable in some ways. But also exploitable by people not hindered by morals.

You might think this "I won't engage in speculation" bs gets you off the hook, the truth is it doesn't. This is a forum not a congressional hearing. You have no problem speculating. What you have a problem with is you needing to express an actual principle before Trump tells you what your principle should be. For the simple reason that you have none besides defending Trump.

No, it doesn't put a lie to anything other than the stupid notion that talk is equivalent to strength, and Tiawan still exists because all the talk has amounted to is a whole lot of nothing other unchecked positioning by China on the international stage backed up with a paper tiger.

....

It's absolutely true that President Trump's Administration doesn't give a flying **** about International Law because it is what the President, Steve Miller, and Secretary Rubio have either said or strongly alluded to, and I most certainly agree with them on that matter.

Law is never meant to be a matter of convivence for any one entity or position, is only valuable, valid or properly executed in a manner that provides equal protection for all, and that is most certainly not how the International Courts (or Organizations like the UN and including some of our so-called allies) ever handle the United States. They can go **** themselves as far as I am concerned. I hope that cleared it up for you.

....

An ally is valuable when they are strong, and not when they are in the position to lose their own identity, are failing to protect their own citizens and their rights and cannot keep the consequences of their foolish behavior in regard to lopsided International Policies and Consensus from destroy their own nations.

Of course, a lot of this is covered in the National Defense Plan for 2026, and you might want to give it a read in order to catch up with what is actually happening and what our actual intentions are, instead that tripe you get spoon fed that is little more than biased commentary from disingenuous political hacks.

....

You are no more sure about how the rest of the world views President Trump than the trumped-up garbage spoon fed to you, and that you are more than willing to embrace in attempts to validate your pathetically weak desires, and hand wringing worrying about impending doom.

However, I don't totally blame you for that, because it is more of an example of how you have been coopted by those pushing the ridiculous notion that any strength is bad or toxic (since the mid 70's), and the idea that vapid, one-sided diplomacy that many nations don't respect or abide by is somehow a better answer and will provide the world with the Kumbaya Utopia you so desperately desire.

....

I don't have a problem with speculation; there's just no need to pretend that facts and actual actions in any way have to allow your stupid self-serving speculation to even be considered as far as support would be concerned.

You could ask me if I would support the idea of Senator Schumer shooting a dog, and couldn't answer that any other way than, "I am not even going to consider the idea that Senator Schumer would even have a reason to shoot a dog."

Of course, this all may be a little too deep for you and it will never suit whatever your purpose here may be, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Ringo]

Caitlin Jonestown: "The Democrats spent 10 years claiming that Trump is a vicious fascist, and when he invades a sovereign country and kidnaps its leader, all they say is, 'Be polite, ask Congress first... They're just Trump with a rainbow flag."

And all together, it's capitalism.

 

[Ringo]

What if we renamed Greenland to Trumpaland? Donald deserves it, I think.