Political Posts

[Spooky]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

It never ceases to amaze me that some here always seem to be confused about what Trump says - except when they are not.  

 

I don't understand your statement. I barely even listen to Trump anymore he either lies or when he makes a true statement all the republicans come out and say he didn't mean what he said. Should I take him at face value or not? Trump said Venezuela is about the Oil many times. But then people go on Fox and say it is not about the oil but x, y, z reason. Give me a break.

 

Just look at Stephen Miller's recent statements about Greenland. Look at the "Donroe Doctrine". 

 

 

[Spooky]

4 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Can you show us where Trump/Miller said they are willing to take Greenland by force?

 

Or are you just making that up?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmnY1Jv21Cw

[Spooky]

6 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Can you show us where Trump/Miller said they are willing to take Greenland by force?

 

Or are you just making that up?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, Spooky said:

 

I don't understand your statement. I barely even listen to Trump anymore he either lies or when he makes a true statement all the republicans come out and say he didn't mean what he said. Should I take him at face value or not? Trump said Venezuela is about the Oil many times. But then people go on Fox and say it is not about the oil but x, y, z reason. Give me a break.

 

Just look at Stephen Miller's recent statements about Greenland. Look at the "Donroe Doctrine". 

 

 

Last I checked Stephen Miller was one of a whole lot of advisors.  I mean, if the US is really imperialist, don't you think they'd shoot for something more than a large hunk of ice?  There are plenty of defenseless places a whole lot more inviting.

[Spooky]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Last I checked Stephen Miller was one of a whole lot of advisors.  I mean, if the US is really imperialist, don't you think they'd shoot for something more than a large hunk of ice?  There are plenty of defenseless places a whole lot more inviting.

 

Like running Venezuela?

[73 Reds]

Just now, Spooky said:

 

Like running Venezuela?

Oh, so maybe you'd prefer Maduro were back in power?  That's precisely my point:  context and perspective.

[SharperDingaan]

30 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Context and perspective just seems to get lost in these discussions.

 

Sometimes  .... the context is intentionally lost 

 

October 30, 2025

An independent petroleum reserves and resources evaluation has confirmed world-class hydrocarbon potential in Greenland’s Jameson Land basin, identifying more than 13 billion barrels of prospective recoverable oil resources across 58 prospects.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2025/10/30/greenland-s-jameson-land-basin-holds-13-bbbl-oil-potential-new-report-finds/

 

SD

[73 Reds]

Just now, SharperDingaan said:

 

Sometimes  .... the context is intentionally lost 

 

October 30, 2025

An independent petroleum reserves and resources evaluation has confirmed world-class hydrocarbon potential in Greenland’s Jameson Land basin, identifying more than 13 billion barrels of prospective recoverable oil resources across 58 prospects.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2025/10/30/greenland-s-jameson-land-basin-holds-13-bbbl-oil-potential-new-report-finds/

 

SD

The US doesn't need to annex Greenland to benefit from any such reserves  That's where negotiation and agreements come into play.  We've got the right guy for the job.  

[Sweet]

They have not ruled out military, and have said the military is an option, which is different from saying the will use it.

 

The US says it needs it for national security, fine, but maybe Europe needs it too.  It’s European owned, has been a long time, the people there seem to want the status quo.

 

I can see why the US wants it but that’s not all that matters in the world.

 

Even if Trump was to get it, I can see a Democrat administration giving it back.

 

I think it’s a terrible idea for Trump to unilaterally take it.

 

Edited January 7 by Sweet

[Spooky]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Oh, so maybe you'd prefer Maduro were back in power?  That's precisely my point:  context and perspective.

 

Alright man. Choose not to believe the evidence of your eyes. The reality is the US left the VZ regime in place and they are cracking down on people in the street. No plan to transition to a democratically elected government.

[Spooky]

Just now, Sweet said:

They have ruled out military which is different from saying the will use it.

 

Do you understand how insane that is? Refusing to rule out military action against Denmark, a NATO ally? Would that trigger Article 5 and then NATO is at war with the US?

[73 Reds]

Just now, Spooky said:

 

Alright man. Choose not to believe the evidence of your eyes. The reality is the US left the VZ regime in place and they are cracking down on people in the street. No plan to transition to a democratically elected government.

Sure, 3 days and you have all the answers, LOL.  Let us know how it turns out.  

[John Hjorth]

38 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

John, a lot of young people get their foot in the door with unpaid internships.  I just don't get all the hoopla surrounding Greenland.  Don't the people there get a say?  My understanding is they were working toward complete independence; am I wrong?  In any event, the new narrative is that under Trump the US is imperialist.  That's kind of amusing to folks here who understand that we have a tough enough time taking care of our own domestically.  Just like there is a difference between starting wars and protecting/preventing wars, it is abundantly clear (to me anyway) that the US only views Greenland as a strategic outpost in pursuit of stopping foreign aggression.  Not sure why this so confusing to some.  My guess is (and it is only a guess) that if the population of Greenland (which is equivalent to the residents of a few square blocks in some our larger cities) were given an opportunity to have pretty much anything reasonable that they could think of in exchange for a US presence on Greenland, they would at least consider the option.  It is not as if the President plans to build a Trump Tower and Casino on the coast or destroy the native habitat.  Context and perspective just seems to get lost in these discussions.

 

Thank you, @73 Reds,

 

Thank you for being open minded, nosy, asking. I like and appreciate that.

 

Naturally, there is something about the proportions on this Greenland thingy going on, where the proportitions aren't similar for an American citizen [like you are] [US population ~345 million I think] and i.e. a Danish citizen [~6 million, of which Greenland ~56 thousand].

 

Your post above actually constitutes a great basis for dissecting this thingy. I personally both curse Greenland and at same time it's intertwined in my own life on a personal level, so I'm attracted to it, in a very weird way, so it will become kind of personal.

 

I've never been there, but I hope go there, some day. I think it's a really fascinating place. [All while I'm by now also appreciating our cheap district heating here!  ]

 

So, I'll elaborate here, over time time.

Edited January 7 by John Hjorth

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, Spooky said:

 

Do you understand how insane that is? Refusing to rule out military action against Denmark, a NATO ally? Would that trigger Article 5 and then NATO is at war with the US?

Wake up; Trump doesn't rule out anything.  

[Spooky]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Sure, 3 days and you have all the answers, LOL.  Let us know how it turns out.  

 

You seem to have all the answers. I wish you luck with your military adventurism.

[73 Reds]

Just now, John Hjorth said:

 

Thank you, @73 Reds,

 

Thank you for being open minded, nosy, asking. I like and appreciate that.

 

Naturally, there is something about the proportions on this Greenland thingy going on, where the proportitions aren't similar for an American citizen [like you are] [US population ~345 million I think] and i.e. a Danish citizen [~6 million, of which Greenland ~56 thousand].

 

Your post above actually constitutes a great basis dissecting this thingy. I personally both curse Greenland and at same time it's intertwined in my own life on a personal level, so I'm attracted to it, in a very weird way, so it will become king of personal.

 

I've never been there, but I hope go there, some day.

 

So, I'll elaborate here, over time time.

OK, thanks John.  Seems as if I opened a hornet's nest.  

[Gregmal]

What’s funny is who’s actually being listened to! Is it the suitor? Of course? Is it the captor…or course! Is it the people of Greenland whom wish to be independent of both the suitor and the captor? Nope!

[Spooky]

18 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Wake up; Trump doesn't rule out anything.  

 

Then it looks like former allies need to prepare for a world where the US is a military adversary.

[Sweet]

20 minutes ago, Spooky said:

 

Do you understand how insane that is? Refusing to rule out military action against Denmark, a NATO ally? Would that trigger Article 5 and then NATO is at war with the US?

No it wouldn’t trigger article 5.  Turkey and Greece, both NATO members went to war and nothing happened NATO.  I think this is much bigger than that and has the potential to end NATO.  Short term that hurts Europe, longer term I think it’s the US it hurts most.  The US has huge international clout partly because the institutions it helped create and leads amplifies its power.  With that gone, I think US influence fades considerably.

[John Hjorth]

16 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

OK, thanks John.  Seems as if I opened a hornet's nest.  

 

It certainly is, @73 Reds!,

 

It's worse than a inflamed abscess, an ingrown nail!  - More later.

[73 Reds]

Just now, Spooky said:

 

Then it looks like former allies need to prepare for a world where the US is a military adversary.

Whatever.  We get it, you hate Trump.  But most people here don't really care what you think of our leader any more than you care what we think of yours.  But good to know that Europe is finally focusing more on US perspective.  In fact, maybe that is one of the goals.

[Spekulatius]

49 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Ancient history is hardly applicable.  What about all the conditions, restrictions, reservations, etc.... that you assume have no effect on US ability to carry out its intended objectives?   Again, if the issue was that cut and dry we'd have no interest.  Its not.  

Its got nothing to downing operating t the bases, Trump wants to expand the US territory and is after minerals.

 

The Greenlander already have a say and as far as I know said no to US advances. They would be stupid to join the US because of the minerals are really there, they will all stupid rich, because there are only 56k of them. If they become an US colony, they have much less agency.

 

Its pretty clear to anyone that what is happening is here 19 century imperials. Last years WH security directive pretty much says so.

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, dealraker said:

 

I think Reds is correct but the thing that's got to be at all times is bigger and bolder, preferable that it is against "the rules" and even better against the law.  The main thing is to portray that the big man and his people are not going to play by anyone's law or any historcial precedent, that getting what they want is simply going to happen.  Tad of getting even, a bit privilege, and somewhat you held us down too long or whatever.

 

Trump will do this for a while, he'll constantly go new and surprising, he'll take whatever direction this gives the most chase by the media and opposition.  It works...until it doesn't.  Not that this is anything new for these types, he's one of thousands through history.  Trump to me though does have a magnificent gift and that's the gift of survival.  He also can win or at least stay neutral when everyone else around him does not prosper.

 

There's huge belief currently that we are prospering under Trump.  My view is that while this belief is fine to be thinking today, I'm just in the camp of observing how it turns out - that this assumption is jumping the gun by a long shot.  Trump damages a lot of things in his journeys.   I look for many of his endeavors to wipe out those involved as in the past.

@dealraker agreed.

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Its got nothing to downing operating t the bases, Trump wants to expand the US territory and is after minerals.

 

The Greenlander already have a say and as far as I know said no to US advances. They would be stupid to join the US because of the minerals are really there, they will all stupid rich, because there are only 56k of them. If they become an US colony, they have much less agency.

 

Its pretty clear to anyone that what is happening is here 19 century imperials. Last years WH security directive pretty much says so.

Sure, but minerals don't extract themselves.  

[Spooky]

6 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Whatever.  We get it, you hate Trump.  But most people here don't really care what you think of our leader any more than you care what we think of yours.  But good to know that Europe is finally focusing more on US perspective.  In fact, maybe that is one of the goals.

 

It has nothing to do with Trump. The US pulling back its security and nuclear umbrella is leading to a much more unstable world. We have Germany, France and the UK creating a separate nuclear umbrella.

 

Japan and Korea are going to need to re-evaluate their security posture and nuclear strategy.

 

The odds of a global military or nuclear confrontation have increased.

 

The doomsday clock is 89 seconds to midnight: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/