132
‘Do I Annihilate the Islamic Republic?’ Trump Issues Shocking Threat to Iran in UN Speech (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [B] to c/politics@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell"

The post ‘Do I Annihilate the Islamic Republic?’ Trump Issues Shocking Threat to Iran in UN Speech first appeared on Mediaite.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 1 month ago (11 children)

So my guess is, this is to distract from how incredibly bad his Greenland deal was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Uhhh, what Greenland deal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    The one that hadn’t been signed or even spelled out really. It’s tremendously bigly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Are news reports of some deal being signed inaccurate?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    This is from 3 days ago:

    President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the United States has reached an agreement with Denmark and Greenland to give the US “permanent control over security, and all other needs,” in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark home to 56,000 people.

    “This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “From now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.” 

    The agreement has not yet been signed, and little is known about it beyond Trump’s social media posts. Denmark and Greenland said on Saturday that any ​agreement with the United States would not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty. And Trump’s words about expanding American military presence in Greenland may not mean much, considering that the US military already enjoys sweeping access to Greenland under a treaty that dates to the 1950s. Service members are, in fact, the single largest group of Americans currently present in the territory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Signed, very good. No details other than they plan to build more bases there. That’s going to be expensive and pointless, but ok.

    In Copenhagen, 40-year-old barber Gavin Sharpe told AFP: "It's just the same situation."

    He believes that Trump's messaging was meant to win over US voters, adding that "I think it is exactly the same deal they had before."

    . . . Under a 1951 defense pact updated in 2004, Washington was already able to ramp up its military presence on the island provided it informed Denmark and Greenland in advance.

    Yeah, there’s language that a non-NATO, non-EU country can’t build military bases there, so, uh, win. I guess? But as an agreement, the whole thing’s a big puffy nothing. Unless there’s something in the other 9 pages that’s a real shocker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I wouldn't call it a bad deal. He walked in with nothing, asked for a lot, walked away with something, which is more than he deserved to get

    I don't think any other potential outcome would've been better for anyone.

    Actually I'd rather call it an agreement than a deal, because the only losers of the "deal" (Russia and China) were not part of the negotiation at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It was an embarrassing “deal” for him. He went in with enough, threatened with war, walked away with pretty much the same as he went in with “deal” wise, but lost all trust of most Europeans along the way.

    The signing of the “deal” was covered heavily on all danish media platforms yesterday, everybody basically praying he wouldn’t find out he’s been played. He thinks he got the best deal ever, we’re just happy that his predatory attention is somewhere else for now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Sure, the lost trust was not worth it. He could've just asked politely for the same thing.

    He talks a lot of bullshit, but even he underestimated the stamina of the Danish Foreign Minister when it comes to maintaining a bullshit dialogue.

    However, I don't think that portraying it as if the bully got framed is a good way to see it, because that acknowledges the behaviour of the bully and that Denmark stooped down to play with the bully. It's a fair description, but not really useful for anything other than critisism. We need to look forward.

    I still prefer to view it as an agreement between allies rather than a win/lose scenario. Once the passageways over the Arctic opens it will be beneficial to Nato and EU that China doesn't have the opportunity to interfere economically.

    It also solidifies Greenlands position among the "western" world if/when they decide to become independent. If they went independent right now, they'd be a 3rd world country, and we already know how China likes to "invest" in 3rd world countries for their own benefit only.

    I think the trust is gone for lots of other reasons as well, so it will take decades to rebuild that. Again, we need to look ahead, and this agreement is a small step in the right direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent