Frightening and sinister - Stephen Miller “top aide to President
Trump, told CNN that the U.S. had the right to take Greenland. “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,”
As reported by the NYT
Replies to: Frightening and sinister - Stephen Miller “top aide to President
Can anyone give a compelling reason to take Greeland - and destroy NATO?
Miller and the other admin dopes just yell about how it is obvious that Greenland should be part of the United States. They have never given one reason that we need it.
Greenland...Trump is handling it poorly, IMO.
He should be going on a charm offensive with Greenlanders while privately negotiating with Denmark, not trying to bully Denmark in public, putting them in a corner.
Vlad can!
(no message)
American power was formed via our relationships with allies. Trump is blowing that all up.
Excerpts from a well written piece in The Atlantic:
Trump’s ‘American Dominance’ May Leave Us With Nothing
By Anne Applebaum
.....
At his press conference on Saturday, Trump did not use the word democracy. He did not refer to international law. Instead, he presented a garbled version of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, a policy originally designed to keep foreign imperial powers out of the Americas, calling it something that sounded like the “Donroe Document”: “Under our new National Security Strategy,” he said, reading from prepared remarks, “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
Toward this end, he said the United States would “run” Venezuela, although he didn’t say who would actually be in charge. Viceroy Marco Rubio? Governor-General Pete Hegseth? Asked about María Corina Machado, the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, Trump was dismissive. “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect within the country,” he said.
Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, leads a movement whose presidential candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, received two-thirds of the vote in the 2024 election.
....
For the moment, Trump isn’t interested in identifying the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
....
Two days after the capture of Maduro, Trump already risks falling victim to his own propaganda, just like Putin. Venezuela, as one former U.S. ambassador to the country recently wrote, is “a failed state riddled with illegal armed groups and foreign terrorist organizations.” The regime has not been removed. The military and various paramilitaries are all still in place, and although some might cooperate with the Trump administration, others might not. With no U.S. troops in Venezuela, will Americans “run” Venezuela by issuing loud statements and threats? By ordering periodic military interventions? Perhaps the administration has made a deal with some members of the regime—that would explain why the American raid met so little opposition—but there is no guarantee that such a deal will produce the kinds of benefits Trump expects. Oil isn’t something that lies around on the ground to be picked up and taken home. It requires long-term investments, relationships, contracts. If the government of Venezuela is likely to fall or change at any moment, none of those will materialize.
But Trump’s error is even more fundamental. The division of the world into spheres of influence implies that smaller countries cannot influence events, and it’s a grave mistake to imagine Venezuelans won’t try. Many of them wanted an American intervention, are overjoyed that Maduro is gone, and no wonder: He and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, together turned the richest country in South America into the poorest, fortifying their ugly security state with guns and surveillance systems purchased from autocracies around the world.
But now that Maduro is gone, the people who fought for years for justice, freedom, and self-determination aren’t going to want to live in a Trump-backed dictatorship staffed with Maduro’s cronies.
....
Most Americans still do want their country to stand for something other than greed, and most don’t want their expensive military to fight on behalf of Trump’s oil-industry donors. Trump’s pursuit of an illusory sphere of influence is unlikely to bring us peace or prosperity—any more than the invasion of Ukraine brought peace and prosperity to Russians—and this might become clear sooner than anyone expects.
If America is just a regional bully, after all, then our former allies in Europe and Asia will close their doors and their markets to us. Sooner or later, “our” Western Hemisphere will organize against us and fight back. Far from making us more powerful, the pursuit of American dominance will make us weaker, eventually leaving us with no sphere, and no influence, at all.
Why have our allies been leeching off us for years?
(no message)
Yes! Cut 'em off. Cease all trade with them. America will go it alone!!
(no message)
Don’t be stupid. Just hold them accountable.
(no message)
Given Trump's support for Putin, taking Greenland would make things easier for Vlad...and destroying
NATO would be icing on the cake.
It's "Greenland" and Trump is unlikely to invade. Politico offered a sane analysis last year.
Yes, I mistyped. Board idiots celebrate.
(no message)
Yes, it’s a good time to be a democrat.
(no message)
Even if anyone did give a compelling reason, it would be dismissed outright because it's Trump.
(no message)
The point is that NO ONE has been able to give a compelling reason.
It seems to me that Trump wants the minerals that may be under Greenland's ice. Which we could just pay for. Or ask Denmark to allow US companies to drill for - and they would say yes. Just like they allowed thousands of US forces to be deployed there during the Cold War.
The Danes have said yes to everything we have ever asked of them.
The whole thing makes no sense at all.
National security. DJT's words, not mine. He said Russia & China ships are all round the area.
(no message)
He's lying.
There are FAR fewer Russian ships "around" Greenland than there were during the Cold War. And there are no Chinese ships.
Even if there were, we could easily deploy assets to Greenland. Denmark would certainly OK it.
But maybe you see how it relates to national security.
See. That's is your predictable response to a compelling reason. Told you so.
And, you determine what is compelling and what is not. Why bother.
"National Security" is a vague generality, not a compelling reason for anything.
But explaining that to you is pointless.
What's pointless is trying to give you an explanation because no explanation will be good enough.
Since you're the arbiter of compelling reasoning and all, It's all very TDS.
How about just one explanation?
(no message)
WH gave an explanation but you just don't like it because they said it.
(no message)
You're right, it doesn't make any sense other than imperial acquisition of resources.
Which seems to be the primary reason for what's going on with Venezuela, oil.
But siding with Danish control doesn't make a lot of sense either, especially coming from the anti-colonial left. It hurts your argument.
I bet, like Scotland, if the Greenlanders wanted independence, they could get it with a referendum
The Danes don't hang onto it by force. And maybe this inspires them to hold a referendum.
But there are advantages to being part of Denmark. Especially since there are only 60K or so people.
It would make a lot more sense to associate with Canada where most of the other Inuits live.
(no message)
Sure, whatever. No one in the USA makes that call.
(no message)
Colonizer!
(no message)
Why does Denmark need it?
It probably makes most sense as a Canadian territory or independent. But it should be the people that live there to decide.
Huh?
(no message)
Is Greenland a topic you're willing to discuss without a chaperone?
(no message)
That's not the question
(no message)
It makes no sense as a territory of Denmark, especially considering the civil rights abuses.
(no message)
Again, not the relevant point. It's not like Trump is going to hand it to the natives.
Taking Greenland will cripple, if not totally destroy, NATO.
Why do we need it?
I am in favor of an independent or self-determinate Greenland
There are about 60K people, mostly Innuit, have their own language and culture.
A hostage of NATO sanctimony isn't a compelling argument to me.
But to answer the question you're interested in, I don't know why Trump/Miller are obsessed with it.
Idiotic Trumper rationale incoming..
(no message)
Consent Management