all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 2 months ago

Classic trump: don't ask for consent, just grab em by the pussy.

Imprison the whole crew and confiscate all the gear.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Hors-sujet total :

    Ah la nostalgie. Arkham était un magasin de comics US à Paris avec 2 grandes gargouilles à l’entrée et des gérants super sympa. Ils ont fini par fermer car trop de concurrence et les comics devenaient trop chers.

    Un des propriétaire était Numa Roda-Gil (qui avait fait présentateur télé sur la 5 dans les années 90 je crois), le fils d'Étienne Roda-Gil. Le bon vieux temps comme on dit.

  • source
  • parent
  • 36 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 54 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    How do they afford the impossibly cheap gas at the special Trump gas stations? Stealing the oil.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    They already have Venezuela for that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Not sure if it matters, but Venezuelas oil is heavy crude. Its good for bunker fuel for ships, but cant be easily made into gasoline.

    Also, I doubt we are there for oil-- even if we are pretending we are. It'll be for something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    US refineries are specialized for it. Which is why it is so important to the US. Refineries aren't cheap and refitting them ain't cheap. Built on the idea that we could indefinitely exploit South America.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Only Citgo

    Singer acquired Citgo at a bargain price in large part due to the embargo, with limited exceptions, on Venezuela oil imports to the United States. Citgo’s refiners are purpose-built to process heavy-grade Venezuelan “sour” crude. As a result, Citgo was forced to source oil from more expensive sources in Canada and Colombia. (Oil produced in the United States is generally light-grade.) This made Citgo’s operations far less profitable.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/01/trump-venezuela-oil-maduro-billionaire-paul-singer-citgo-elliot-management-hedge-fund/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago

    Keep an eye on them, and as soon as they start drilling, put the cuffs on them and confiscate the equipment.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    Greenland and countries that are friendly with Greenland need to show up with their military and tell those oil companies to F off

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago*

    The amoral West has to cannibalize itself if it cannot feed on the rest of world as easily, and it won't be long until we're back in the "white on white wars" days. Ofc, everyone else will suffer but that's just life, I guess.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    So you're telling me that Illegal immigrants from America are crossing the border to work in Greenland without the proper visas?

    How interesting.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    E... U... Good God ya'll! What is it good for?

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Fuck America and Americans... Jesus

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Come on, man… I’m not in charge of anything over here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    How convenient. Where's this humility when you blamed middle easterners for their dictators?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of government with a population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Seriously. Where are you from? Now take the worst people there, that's your fault mate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Go do something about it instead of arguing online with me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    What do you do for your country?

    Oh, nothing? Nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You're going to have to come up with something better than that kid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You still haven't graced us with the name of your amazing country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Well here's an idea get your fucking mitary to go tell them to get the fuck out.

    Problem solved.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Already begun?

    No, that's your answer

  • source
  • [+] -25 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Isn’t this a company unloading their boat? Maybe they get the ok to drill, maybe they don’t. They can ship their equipment all around the world and it’s only a big deal if they do something with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Shall I come into your house with a bag ready to fill with your valuables? Maybe I get the OK to take everything, maybe I don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If I have a big driveway and a sign that says “15 mins max loading zone” I don’t really care what you do there. If you walk into my house uninvited then we’ll have problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 35 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 50 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Dear Greenland,

    You cannot allow this. Whatever political moves you are thinking about making, whatever rebuff you are considering, this can't be allowed to happen.

    I say this as an American. You can't reason with Trump by letting him violate your borders. I know it may be hard to envision, but you are the natives in a moment of imperial expansion. Your schools are better than ours; you should know what that means. Trump is taking moves from Putin, Hitler, and even the British fucking Empire. You're Hawaii, telling the fruit companies to fuck off, but with oil.

    Jessica Berlin is right. Remove or destroy those machines now. The moment you let the US break ground, you have signaled your own defeat.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Trump is also desperate to stay in power. With midterms fast approaching uncertainty of his power grows. This is a dangerous time. Trump is willing to do anything and I mean anything to stay in power. All out world war is certainty on the table.

    This might just be the catalyst he wants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    As a Dane, this is not Greenland's decision. They're 50k people. Denmark and the EU as a whole needs to take this fight, Greenland doesn't have the power to say no in any serious capacity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    True enough, I looked up the population a while after making this comment but I was afk. I don't see the EU taking up the fight though. I guess papa putin gets another thing he wants. NATO getting pulled apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    It's a really complex situation, but ultimately I think you're right.

    Even between two willing and eager trading partners, sovereign nation or not, just showing up with your gear without an inked contract is an overstep. It's entirely appropriate to say "hey load that gear back on to your boat within 3 days", lest you end up with a fait accompli.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This should be seen as an invasion, but I doubt anyone is willing to stand up to him. I doubt carney will do anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Although the project has not been approved, a Greenland Energy representative said a vessel carrying additional drilling equipment would depart Canada in September, with drilling set to begin in October.

    Sounds like Canada needs to put those elbows up for once, and stop that equipment from leaving port.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    That's not really how ports work though? Authorities don't need to approve the purpose and destination of outbound ships.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    That's exactly how ports work. If Canada suspects that a ship is transporting cargo to an unauthorized location, they can absolutely seize the ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (16 children)

    I dont think that's generally true.

    Its up to the port of arrival to reject an incoming ship or specific cargo. In some cases the the destination may have an arrangement where by the port of departure allows the destinations customs officers to pre-screen departures.

    Ports of departure can't seize outbound ships carrying corporate non-trade cargo because it's unclear whether they will be able to land at their purported destination. That's not a thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Yeah, no. It's up to both ends to make sure that what's on those ships, is legal. You need to file paperwork with both ports, making sure that what you are loading, is going to a place that you are legally allowed to unload.

    Imagine the shit-storm that would come our way, if Canadian ports simply "allowed" cargo containers full of weed to be shipped to China. What's the problem? It's legal here, so who cares where it's going, right?

    No. It can't be allowed to leave, if it doesn't have a legal destination. We have obligations to observe international shipping laws. If we didn't, then every ship leaving Canadian ports would need to be searched and possibly seized, just in case...no matter where they are going, or what's on board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    Its as though you didn't read my comment.

    Seizing a ship with non-trade goods would cause an international incident.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    So would allowing them to use a Canadian port to once again violate international law. By launching an illegal drilling operation from Canadian soil, they would be making Canada at least somewhat complicit. It's not like Canada can pretend they didn't know what was happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (12 children)

    It's absurd to suggest that ports of departure are responsible for the ships that leave their ports.

    If that's how things worked, that vessel would just log a plan to return to somewhere in the US.

    The vessel is carrying industrial equipment. There's no clear and present risk of imminent harm.

    Yes, if Canada was aware that the ship was carrying weapons of mass destruction, or biological pathogens, they might have a responsibility to detain the ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    What's also absurd is Canada allowing its ports to be used as a staging ground for what is essentially the opening salvos of a US invasion of one of our other allies. This isn't "just some ship carrying industrial equipment". It is a hostile expeditionary force, intent on illegally occupying a Canadian ally's territory.

    Doing nothing in this case would put Canada on the wrong side of events that could potentially lead to a conflict with the rest of NATO. This is not an accident. Allowing the US to use Canadian ports like this, would put Canada in an impossible position with the rest of our allies in Europe. It cannot be allowed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (10 children)

    That's just not true. If it were a hostile invasion then Canada couldn't them. If there are no weapons then it's not hostile - precisely why it's been et up this way.

    There's every chance they will be granted peermission to dig before they arrive in Greenland.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    So you think Canada just "playing dumb" will convince people that we didn't know what the US was doing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    Mate we're two idiots on social media discussing what the US is doing. Everyone knows. There's no playing dumb.

    My point is, Canada is unable to seize ships sailing under a foreign flag without a legal pretext.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    Mate we're two idiots on social media discussing what the US is doing. Everyone knows. There's no playing dumb.

    That was my point. Canada can't just pretend they don't know what's going to happen if that ship is allowed to bring that equipment to Greenland. Which means they either allow our ports to be used by the US to invade another country...or they don't.

    Allowing our country to be used as a staging area for the illegal occupation of an ally's territory should be all the "legal pretext" we need to tell the US to go fuck themselves. If we let them drag our country into this, then our government just put us on the wrong side of whatever inevitably comes next.

    Do you honestly think Canada will side with the US over the rest of NATO? Or even just sit back and watch them invade Greenland, and pretend like there was nothing we could have done to at least distance ourselves from the conflict, by telling the US they can't use our ports for this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    Its not an invasion.

    Quite obviously, if it were a military convoy that would be a different situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    So, now we're back to pretending we don't know what the US is doing? This is an invasion, just with extra steps.

    Step 1: Set up an unauthorized drilling site in someone else's territory, knowing that the local government is going to say, "You can't do that."

    Step 2: The local government says, "You can't do that."

    Step 3: Send troops to "defend" US equipment and personnel from potential retaliation by the local government...even though that was never a real threat.

    Unauthorized civilian incursion = inevitable military occupation. "Playing dumb" just makes us look either complicit, or hopelessly stupid. And no one is that stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    That's a fairly odd way to look at things.

    An invasion is a specific thing well defined by international treaties and history. You can't just label an approaching vessel with industrial equipment as "an invasion" based on the vibe.

    In the delicate tête-à-tête of global politics each move needs to be carefully and cautiously considered.

    Canada can't simply seize a US vessel because they don't like the intentions of it's owners. If you did, the owners would simply say they had no intention of landing without proper authorisation.

    Also, the US can't deploy it's military to protect civilian equipment. That is very clearly an act of war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    An invasion is a specific thing well defined by international treaties and history. You can't just label an approaching vessel with industrial equipment as "an invasion" based on the vibe.

    Ummm...no, man. An invasion is when you take control of land that doesn't belong to you. It can also be called an "annexation" or an "occupation". And no one needs to "declare" anything. You just have to cross the border into someone else's territory with your military, and then "not leave".

    As for "acts of war", do you believe Putin when he says that the invasion of Ukraine and the war they've been fighting for the last few years, was just a "special military operation"?

    And are you seriously arguing that Canada has no control over who is allowed to come and go from our own ports? That the US can simply move whatever they want through them, for any reason, and Canada has no say in the matter? Seriously? Canadian ports don't belong to the Americans. They are not international property.

    Canadian authorities stop, board and size cargo from departing ships all the time, if they are carrying unauthorized cargo destined for somewhere it isn't allowed to go. They don't just look the other way, and say, "Oh well. That's their problem", and let it go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    An invasion is when you take control of land that doesn’t belong to you

    So according to your own definition, no invasion is underway.

    if they are carrying unauthorized cargo destined for somewhere it isn’t allowed to go

    ... and by this test, Canadian authorities have no reason to intervene in this matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I guess I'll just repost what I wrote earlier, since you didn't actually read it...

    So, now we're back to pretending we don't know what the US is doing? This is an invasion, just with extra steps.

    Step 1: Set up an unauthorized drilling site in someone else's territory, knowing that the local government is going to say, "You can't do that."

    Step 2: The local government says, "You can't do that."

    Step 3: Send troops to "defend" US equipment and personnel from potential retaliation by the local government...even though that was never a real threat.

    Unauthorized civilian incursion = inevitable military occupation.

    "Playing dumb" just makes us look either complicit, or hopelessly stupid. And no one is that stupid.

    As for the last part...the US is not authorized to drill in Greenland. How does that not fit the criteria of "unauthorized"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Again, by your own definition no invasion has occurred.

    You can't seize a vessel because you're worried about what you think is going to happen.

    Best you leave the thinking to the grown ups I think.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Yep. This is the same way Halliburton and KBR rolled in the middle east.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It reeks of new military base

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    They don't need any of this bullshit to set up a new military base. For one thing, they can just move back into one of their many old military bases. For another, there is an agreement with Denmark from the 50s that they can set up as many bases as they like. That's why this particular stream of manure emanating from Trump's mouth is particularly ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    So this is where the stolen Venezuelan funds was put towards

  • source