Danish PM accuses US of ‘unacceptable pressure’ over planned Greenland visit
-
Sure, but they should do it properly e.g. officially rescind these agreements (I'm sure there's a process for that).
Why?
Maintaining "decorum" is the entire reason we're in this mess to begin with.
You give these asshats an inch, they run a mile with it and demand to know why you didn't let them run 10 miles since you already let them run one mile.
-
This is not an option, based on the agreement made between Denmark and USA in 1951.
They can refuse any meetings in Greenland they try to hold though.
-
My understanding is that buying Greenland has been a long-standing Trump goal. I watched an interview with John Bolton where he was talking about how Trump kept bringing it up during Trump's first term. And it's something that a few past US administrations have made efforts toward as well.
Problem is, as Bolton also pointed out, Trump is doing a really effective job of undermining any effort to do so by being abrasive as all hell. Greenland's a democracy. Denmark's a democracy. You can't go piss everyone off and then have any chance of making such a purchase. Not how things work.
"Buy" Trump doesn't pay his debts he will not be buying the country if he is for real. He will take it by force.
-
That's unfortunate for them, because being confronted with even bigger horrible fucking monsters is the only thing the bullies and thugs of the Trump regime respond to.
-
Why?
Maintaining "decorum" is the entire reason we're in this mess to begin with.
You give these asshats an inch, they run a mile with it and demand to know why you didn't let them run 10 miles since you already let them run one mile.
I don't care about "these asshats" but I really don't want my governments to engage in a diplomatic race to the bottom or to start disregarding their own agreements willy nilly, it's just not a good precedent. Also an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that. I understand that might be easy for me to say from a somewhat outside perspective but really, nothing good will come from doing this kind of stupid shit, we need to keep our heads high, respect the rules we agreed on and generally make sure we keep everything kosher, that's the only long term play and the only way we can maintain trust from the rest of our allies. Otherwise we're just like them.
-
I don't care about "these asshats" but I really don't want my governments to engage in a diplomatic race to the bottom or to start disregarding their own agreements willy nilly, it's just not a good precedent. Also an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that. I understand that might be easy for me to say from a somewhat outside perspective but really, nothing good will come from doing this kind of stupid shit, we need to keep our heads high, respect the rules we agreed on and generally make sure we keep everything kosher, that's the only long term play and the only way we can maintain trust from the rest of our allies. Otherwise we're just like them.
That was President Biden's choice of path to take. Look where it got us.
-
Sure, but they should do it properly e.g. officially rescind these agreements (I'm sure there's a process for that).
What does "proper" to any country engaging with the US matter if the US ignores it and then fucks them over for doing it?
It was proper of Canada to uphold the trade agreement reached in Trumps first term, the US reneged on this and is dropping tariffs hand over fist regardless, and now no one is a winner.
Doing anything properly necessitates two parties can agree on something at a minimum and uphold that.
The US is an un-agreeable, improper, traitorous entity, therefore nothing can be done "properly".
-
That was President Biden's choice of path to take. Look where it got us.
Right, I think we agree on what needs to be done, I just want it to be done for real, at the diplomatic level, not an isolated move by a random border patrol agent.
-
What does "proper" to any country engaging with the US matter if the US ignores it and then fucks them over for doing it?
It was proper of Canada to uphold the trade agreement reached in Trumps first term, the US reneged on this and is dropping tariffs hand over fist regardless, and now no one is a winner.
Doing anything properly necessitates two parties can agree on something at a minimum and uphold that.
The US is an un-agreeable, improper, traitorous entity, therefore nothing can be done "properly".
If Europe starts doing illegal shit like this, we will lose trust from the rest of our allies which aren't going down the drain. I've written the US off already, but going all loose-cannon will set the precedent that we can't be trusted and compromise the rest of our international relationships.
I don't think the US needs to agree to anything in order to rescind whatever agreement is being discussed here.
-
They can refuse any meetings in Greenland they try to hold though.
Yes definitely. There will be no official contact between them. Also a lot of police has been brought in from Denmark for this
Silent protests are planned. They will be turning their backs to the convoys when they drive past them
-
If Europe starts doing illegal shit like this, we will lose trust from the rest of our allies which aren't going down the drain. I've written the US off already, but going all loose-cannon will set the precedent that we can't be trusted and compromise the rest of our international relationships.
I don't think the US needs to agree to anything in order to rescind whatever agreement is being discussed here.
I understand what you are saying, but context matters as well, and has superseded bureaucracy depending on the situation historically.
Poland never formally declared war on Germany in response to the invasion on September 1, 1939, do you think badly of Poland for this because they didn't "properly" declare war before trying to fight back?
I am doubtful, because the context matters to you in understanding what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
-
This is not an option, based on the agreement made between Denmark and USA in 1951.
I think there's grounds here for them to not identify the current administration as legitimate. thus negating any agreements with the US government.
-
I understand what you are saying, but context matters as well, and has superseded bureaucracy depending on the situation historically.
Poland never formally declared war on Germany in response to the invasion on September 1, 1939, do you think badly of Poland for this because they didn't "properly" declare war before trying to fight back?
I am doubtful, because the context matters to you in understanding what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
That's fair, and I do agree in extreme circumstances decisions might need to be taken without having the time or resources to follow process, but we better choose those moments very fucking carefully. An invasion would qualify, this "visit" would not, imo.
-
That's fair, and I do agree in extreme circumstances decisions might need to be taken without having the time or resources to follow process, but we better choose those moments very fucking carefully. An invasion would qualify, this "visit" would not, imo.
Yes, what you said is fair as well. I think we have reached a mutually positive conclusion then. Have a good day.
-
Yes, what you said is fair as well. I think we have reached a mutually positive conclusion then. Have a good day.
Love it when that happens
-
That's unfortunate for them, because being confronted with even bigger horrible fucking monsters is the only thing the bullies and thugs of the Trump regime respond to.
-
This is not an option, based on the agreement made between Denmark and USA in 1951.
In reading the 1951 agreement it is specifically aimed at the following ...
armed forces of the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may make use of facilities in Greenland in defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area Source
DJ Vance, Usha Vance, the vice president's wife, White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright will visit, but noneof them are current military members.
It would seem they can be refused according to your reference point.
-
This is not an option, based on the agreement made between Denmark and USA in 1951.
This is not an option, based on the agreement made between Denmark and USA in 1951.
Yes it is. In reading the 1951 agreement it is specifically aimed at the following ...
armed forces of the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may make use of facilities in Greenland in defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area Source
DJ Vance, Usha Vance, the vice president's wife, White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright will visit, but none of them are current military members.
It would seem they can be refused according to your reference point.
-
Usa was granted free access to greenmal in 1951 and were allowed to build military bases without even telling Denmark what they are up to. It is more complicated than just closing the door on them
Not according to what is written in the agreement.
Maybe you haven't read it all yet, like the part where it says the agreement is for NATO-member nations' armed forces are allowed to use the land and buildings as they see fit. Nowhere does it state that politicians or just regular Americans can visit at will.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_relating_to_the_Defense_of_Greenland
-
It's not their place to start an international incident that gives the US their "justification" to invade.
The people of Greenland are relying on the people of the US.
Whoooops.
