all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 55 points 10 months ago (5 children)

This is Europe. We collectively don't support what the US is doing in Venezuela, or threatening in Columbia. Stay TF out of Europe. We need to unlink reliance on the US. Trump today, with a myriad of other morons lined up.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Better get some new leaders then that don't have their heads stuck up Trump's arse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Oh we do need some new ones. I think many still do hold the right stance. Weeding the garden with every election if we're loud enough. Prior to that, letting the leaders know what we want to get them working for self interest to stay in position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Do you really see this? In what country? Like most of Sweden may dislike Trump, but more than half wants his politics here; isolationist, racist, nationalist, deregulation, privitization. The party leaders sometimes call out Trump and their dislike for him, and people eat it up and still vote for the same politics. I see nothing changing here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Politics is always the same. We are in the UK. You don't need me to describe overt racism and silly standards. The only thing they understand is a change of vote or support from them to someone else. We don't want it to move towards more right-wing. We need sensible people with brains making their voices heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I’m siding with NATO if the US invades Greenland.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Risky bet as NATO would probably not survive the US invading another member. If NATO dissolves I would argue that that is defeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago

    Maybe better idea would be to rally IN FRONT of Greenland?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    They will need nukes in greenland.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The actions of the US and Russia in the past several years has been a great argument for nations to build nuclear stockpiles. Which is bad globally, but is a totally reasonable reaction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    I mean, we can go back to the Axis of Evil and see how it went.

    That was a random thing that some George Bush Jr. advisor invented, lumping Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together.

    Iraq: invaded, destroyed (no nukes)

    Iran: bombed regularly, leaders assassinated (no nukes)

    North Korea: love affair with Trump (nukes)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    Time to send our submarines to the area.

    Hey US, do you remember the last encounter with the Gotland class?

    Either way, let me remind you.

    WE DOMINATED YOU.

    The Gotland simulated sinking your carriers time and time again, and you had no idea we were even in the area.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    An invasion for a hostile place like that would be extremely reliant on supplies. Running out of supplies means rapidly becoming completely unable to fight and probably even freezing to death.

    Ships would be vulnerable to submarines and arctic ice. The US would have to rely mainly on its air power but the weather there can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for long periods of time. It is also extremely challenging to distribute those supplies on land over long distances.

    And that's even supposing that your soldiers even know the basics of how to survive in an Arctic environment like that or they'd just die on their own. And having done some cold weather exercises with Americans, I can tell you that the vast majority of them don't stand a chance against the elements. Leave them there to their own devices for two days and the survivors will be surrendering to the locals in exchange for a warm place to be.

    Really, a place like that has many, many ways to make an invasion go wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    I hate it, but unless the world begins stationing defenses in Greenland there's no chance. The US doesn't even need aircraft. They have ballistic missiles that can reach from the mainland to Greenland.

    The US spent decades ensuring it can project power anywhere in the world at any time, and don't think Greenland is a unique environment for the US military. Several northern Alaskan bases have been in operation since the cold war. They know the environment.

    It's scary. I'd imagine all cities would be lost within days and the most remote areas would be able to host an insurgency. See Afghanistan, but if the US is going to annex Greenland they will throw even more resources at it

  • source
  • parent
  • 35 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 63 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Goebbels-lite needs a short drop and a sudden stop.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 55 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 63 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    He lives on a military base because someone wrote with chalk on the sidewalk next to his previous house.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    also claimed military intervention would not be needed to take over the Arctic territory because “nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland”.

    Has this argument ever worked? Every war US has fought, has been against much weaker target (especially Islamic groups), yet the "target" pretty much always fights back. Why would anyone bend over to getting invaded or captured?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    He's absolutely correct. There's not 60,000 people there and a third of those are in one city. Greenland has the least dense population of any country. We're hardly going to get bogged down fighting natives with hunting rifles. Also, insurgency is rather impossible in a frozen wasteland. At least Simo Häyhä had trees to snipe from.

    Europe isn't going to cross the Pond and start shit if we take Greenland. They're barely standing up to the Russian monster in their backyard, they're hardly going to defend our backyard. We'll get kicked out of NATO, but that's a goal of this administration. Win win.

    All of NATO would have to pull together to storm across the Atlantic, and the US would watch that buildup in real time. God only knows what would happen then, but I'd guess a US first strike.

    In any case, the US would seed the Atlantic with every hunter-killer sub we got. Europe wouldn't be able to sneak a kayak across.

    Pretty fucking bleak situation.

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

    NATO without the USA has 5x the troops capable of operating in Greenland level cold and 10x the equipment capable of the same. Yes the US would be able to seize parts, but holding them would be far more difficult. It would look something like Viet Nam IMO.

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

    Think NATO will cross the Atlantic and do something about it? Serious question. You're talking capability, and you're probably right on the question of winter fighting (damned interesting!), but I'm talking will.

    But let's drop the comparison to Vietnam, or any other American fuck ups. To get into such another quagmire, NATO would have to get troops there in the first place. And again, not like they can hide in Greenland's vast jungles. Honestly, I don't know of a fair wartime comparison? Who has invaded a monstrous rock and who has tried to defend it across an ocean? We're all in new territory, and maybe that's the scariest thing.

    For all intents and purposes, Greenland in an uninhabited rock, on our side of the world, with strategic minerals and positioning, and NATO has done jack shit to defend their own eastern front. And let's not forget Putin pushing for all this, and getting his way. We're taking it and I am scared shitless of what comes next.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Oooor Europe can siege all the US bases in our territory and see if the US people wants to have the soldiers going back home in plastic bags.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    You have a monster breathing down your neck, in your own backyard, and you Europeans are too cowardly to do anything about it. But you will, somehow, find the gumption to besiege American military bases?

    Some of you people have the geopolitical sophistication of a 6th grader.

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

    Remind me - when did "terrorist" attacks in US spike, supply lines targeted, and Americans generally being on edge knowing some groups from Middle East are out to get them?

    Now, that was with small portion of Middle East. Now we're talking about pissing off entirety of European Union and anyone who works for NATO and has capabilities to fuck shit up. I guarantee you people will risk their lives to fuck up your life (well, not yours specifically, but you get the idea - anger towards Americans) if you try to take steal from me or my friends/allies

    I never meant my comment as an open war, but rather .. well, quite literally people fighting back in every way they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    They'd have to nuke it to kill everyone. And if you don't then people will fight back.

    Maybe America will win but not a single occupying soldier will be able to sleep unguarded for fear of being murdered in their sleep, not to mention terrorist attacks in America.

    America hasn't ever won a war where it wasn't assisted massively by a cohort of other countries, except when the other other belligerent was also America, and even then it lost half of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein. Epstein.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    In quiet, reflective moments, Miller muses on his past.

    "I was happy strangling babies in back alley dumpsters. But Trump found me, and showed me how to hurt so many more people. I will forever be grateful".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    pride comes before a fall

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago
    [+] 11 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    So in another post, I said that Denmark/Greenland should make a photo of his wife in a Denmark prison with the words "soon" to mimic her image of USA owning Greenland

    I think I have a better idea though.

    Does anyone know where Stephen Miller lives now after being chased away by chalk drawings in front of his old house?

    Denmark should send someone there and use chalk to draw the Denmark/Greenland flag in front of their house.

    They'll be so terrified of ever leaving their house again.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    I want to give Steven Miller an award for being honest! The ceremony will take place in Auschwitz, where work will make you free. And please, step inside this chamber, where there's an additional gift for you.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Anyone remember what happened to Napoleon's army, then Hitler's army, starting a war in a harsh winter climate?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    These are not threats, these statements are prepping to world for the eventuality.

    From a previous comment:

    Global warming makes Greenland prime real estate. As it warms, prospecting and mining become easier, and it will soon guard year-round Artic sea lanes. With enough warming it may become attractive for farming and living space.

    They learned from Hitler's mistake of not immediately storming the Caucasus oil fields before starting further shit. Guess what we just did? I'll give you three guesses, but you're only going to need one.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 10 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Yes, it's Putin who wants this! But taking Greenland is still in America's best interest, from a strategic point of view, current world politics and near-term consequences be damned.

    As to the future of America, I'm starting to see the light, starting to see how truly dangerous these people's long-term vision is. Trump is all simple-minded greed, but Project 2025 and the like is far worse.

    These people truly believe in a Nazi vision of a 3rd Reich. They want to etch their names in history books. They truly think they're doing what's right for America, now and in the future. Don't all dictators?

    My only hope is that, like Hitler, giddy on success, they bite off more than they can chew.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago