Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Greenland is an independent country it is not for sale.

I stand with the people of Greenland to govern themselves without being threatened by the tangerine tyrant.

Edit:

So all the Trump simps are spouting their predictable nonsense, peppered with the obvious tedious insults.
Honestly can’t you be a bit more original?

Anyway, we all know it’s about oil.
It’s always about oil.

🇬🇱🇬🇱🇬🇱🇬🇱
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Republican senator Mitch McConnell says:

We already have everything we need.

Greenland already cooperates.

Our Arctic access already exists.

What Trump is proposing isn't strategy, it's burning allied trust for nothing.

"Incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies" is not strength. It's self-sabotage.
@ElwoodBlues That’s what Mitch McConnell SAID. What he says tomorrow will likely be the opposite.
pdockal · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues

Since the mid-19th century, four distinct U.S. presidential administrations have officially or formally explored the acquisition of Greenland:
swirlie · 31-35, F
@pdockal
So what? What's your point?
pdockal · 56-60, M
@swirlie

Can't your read & understand English ?????
swirlie · 31-35, F
@pdockal
I don't have any problem at all with English, but you seem to have a problem with incomplete thoughts.
pdockal · 56-60, M
@swirlie

Your the only one with a problem
If you can't comprehend that's not my problem
@pdockal says
four distinct U.S. presidential administrations have officially or formally explored the acquisition

And how many of those four admins proposed "Incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies"?? Not just one ally, mind you, but thirty two loyal NATO allies.

C'mon, how many of those four admins proposed crossing 32 allies to get Greenland??
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
swirlie · 31-35, F
@pdockal
See what I mean, pdockal? Your delivery of your intended thought got buried somewhere in the weeds of your mind, which means that your original point was never made. That's what I tried to tell you, but my observations that were conveyed to you went right over your head as usual.
@pdockal says
Your missing the point

You're missing the point. All other administrations who have considered Greenland have gone through proper diplomatic channels.

NONE of those prior admins proposed "Incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies." Not just one ally, mind you, but thirty one loyal NATO allies.

I do agree that the methods being used are highly suspect and probably won't accomplish anything
You do completely misinterpret me!!

I'm saying that merely trying these threats on our loyal NATO allies is having direct negative consequences. That's a far cry from "won't accomplish anything."

Need an example? Back in early December, tRump crowed "Twenty-one trillion dollars will be the amount invested in the United States — or committed to invest — in one year."

That was his version of the agreements he had made in exchange for greatly reducing tariffs. His number is YUGELY inflated of course, perhaps by a factor of four, but still, it was something.

Now it has gone up in smoke. tRump broke his tariff agreements, so the related investment agreements are now null and void.

See what I mean about direct negative consequences?? That's a far cry from "won't accomplish anything."





UPDATE




I accept your ill-natured concession of defeat!!
pdockal · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues

Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
swirlie · 31-35, F
@pdockal
You still haven't told me ...what was your point a few posts back?
pdockal · 56-60, M
@swirlie

If you don't understand English i can't help you
swirlie · 31-35, F
@pdockal
Do you know where you are, pdockal?

Turn on your headlights and I'll start searching for a car upside down in the ditch with it's lights on.

I'll assume that any cars found upside down in the ditch without their lights on is not you, so I won't stop for them.
ArtieKat · M
@swirlie I had to laugh at that! Priceless