Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I saw that. I've seen him make that argument as well.
Trump and Venezuela.
- Thread starter ele
- Start date
Что вы все так переживаете из-за судьбы Гренландии? Никто не будет отбирать её силой, потому что конфликт со страной НАТО, будет означать ликвидацию самого блока. Её, вероятнее всего купят, или возьмут в аренду лет на 200, как Аляску в своё время. И все будут довольны.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So what are you arguing in post 98? It reads as if you are dismissing it as just Trump making noise, but it clearly is not.
It looks like just blatant lebensraum on the part of this Miller Nazi. The US has the biggest army in the world so it can just take whatever it feels like, and fuck everyone else. There is no objective need to own Greenland for strategic reasons. The US already has a military base there which they are welcome to expand, and the Greenlanders are open to a deal of some sort on mineral extraction too, I gather.
Regarding Venezuela, I see you are in effect arguing that Trump is just Miller's useful idiot and that, though Trump may think it's about oil supply to the US, in fact the reasons are more to do with cutting off supply to Cuba (and possibly China). You might be right about that. It would certainly make more sense strategically than the idiotic notion that the US can bring down the pump price of gasoline by importing Venezuelan crude. But that appears to be what Trump, at least, thinks. (The drug business is clearly bullshit, to provide a paper-thin excuse to abduct the leader and put the frighteners on his successor.)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Bringing down the price of oil makes no sense in any event. Venezuelan heavy crude is expensive to extract so the more you pump, above what is currently being produced, would be more expensive and therefore less viable.
Any new production would be after Trump is out of office anyway.
Regarding Greenland, it has nothing to do with Miller's wife. I'm saying nothing is going to happen in terms of the US military "invading" Greenland. The Europeans are getting all upset and sure they couldn't defend it anyway but that's not going to happen.
Trump isn't going to end NATO, which that would do. He isn't a big fan since the US does the heavy lifting but all that is going to happen is just some agreement that the US can do whatever it wants regarding defense in Greenland.
It can already do that, it did more in WWII and it's going to do more now and in the future. If it wants to buy mineral rights it can do that but that's mainly just talk. The ice cap is 2 miles down. That's not going to happen anytime soon either. There is a reason it's not already happening.
This is what I mean by critical thinking (reality and data based) instead of using emotion and ideology. The US is going to have more control over Cuba, Venezuela and Greenland (defense).
It's also going to crack down on these "ghost fleets" regarding sanctioned oil. The UK even helped with that recently in Icelandic waters.
Europe is also going to rearm and be able to defend and protect itself.
You think I'm inconsistent or a "Trumpie" just because I'm not as emotional and ideological on these subjects are you guys are. You guys attack Trump just as hard when he is right and when he is wrong. You don't think, you emote.
The other day Russia tried to lecture the world about the US breaking international laws regarding Venezuela in removing an illegitimate leader, drug pusher, all while Russia has a dictator for life, is sanctioned and is breaking all those sanctions and started a war with a European neighbor.
Why don't you guys stop him instead of complaining about the US and creating all this hysteria?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Does this mean you think Stephen Miller is not serious about taking over Greenland?
Reuters are reporting that the Trump administration is considering paying Greenlanders $10k-100k each to support secession from Denmark, and to possibly affiliate themselves with the US.
Congress has also advanced a war powers resolution that would prevent Trump from conducting further military activity in Venezuela without the strict consent of Congress. Naturally Trump has threatened to veto any such thing should it come across his desk. Because, you know, authoritarians do what authoritarians do.
Congress has also advanced a war powers resolution that would prevent Trump from conducting further military activity in Venezuela without the strict consent of Congress. Naturally Trump has threatened to veto any such thing should it come across his desk. Because, you know, authoritarians do what authoritarians do.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Reminiscent of Local Hero.Reuters are reporting that the Trump administration is considering paying Greenlanders $10k-100k each to support secession from Denmark, and to possibly affiliate themselves with the US.
Congress has also advanced a war powers resolution that would prevent Trump from conducting further military activity in Venezuela without the strict consent of Congress. Naturally Trump has threatened to veto any such thing should it come across his desk. Because, you know, authoritarians do what authoritarians do.
What's the sky like, Macintyre?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I have no way of getting into that guy's head. If he is effective, and he seems to be (?), then he knows there will be some "agreement" that gets the US what it wants.
In reality they could have gotten all that without starting all the Greenland drama but it is what it is. They aren't going to end NATO, they aren't going to use military force to take Greenland. At some point there will be more bases and radar stations on Greenland. The land will still belong to Denmark until one day Greenland votes to be independent but that makes little sense either. Greenland isn't really sustainable as a country.
I don't try to figure out politics when it gets that "stupid". The natives will continue to live there and Denmark or Greenland will own the land unless one day they decide to sell it to the US..
Actually, it's more likely that the US changes some of the rules/fees regarding NATO than it is for the US to use its military to "storm" Greenland... meaning both the UN and NATO are kind of useless these days and if they went away, OK...
Last edited:
If we did that you'd claim we were emotional and ideological on these subjects, and we attack him just as hard when he is right and when he is wrong.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
"You guys", in this case, means the EU, not California. If "you" were emotional and not rational, yes, I'd say that. If Putin got out of Ukraine, I wouldn't bash him for that. If the EU did anything other than write a strongly worked letter, I'd be for that as well.
If they could defend themselves, I'd acknowledge that too. See how this works?
So the EU is just emotional and not rational because they can't see the good things that Putin does?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You're being emotional again. That's not what I said. I said if Putin got out of Ukraine I would give him credit for that. Sarcasm isn't a good substitute for a good argument. It is emotional though...
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
I think we've found the perfect all-purpose ad hominem. Can be deployed whenever someone shows signs of thinking allied with human feelings. It's also clever in that makes YOUR position unassailable - after all, you are the voice of reason and the other guy cannot be credible because he's emoting. You don't even have to really support your own side of the argument, because you've already dismissed all those sloppy emotions.
Reminds me of that classic tactic of old school misogynists. Calm and rational men trying to soothe their hysterical womenfolk. But yeah, why just use it on women when there's all these uppity upset men?
Reminds me of that classic tactic of old school misogynists. Calm and rational men trying to soothe their hysterical womenfolk. But yeah, why just use it on women when there's all these uppity upset men?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
If the shoe fits. Or you can debate the orange skinned felon if that's more your style?
Everyone knows women are too emotional to be in charge of things. And if they get mad that you say that - why, they're being emotional! Proof!
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Sarcasm, still not an argument.
I wasn't making an argument, lest you think I am too emotional. I was just making fun of your claim.
People without a sense of humor are so easy to offend.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Pointing out sarcasm, still not an argument.
Also, you seem....really emotional this evening, Seattle. Is it that time of the month? You keep saying really emotional rhings like Greenland isn't really sustainable as a country and NATO doesn't do anything and that politics isn't worth figuring out when it gets stupid. These outbursts make me wonder if you need us to send over a therapist. Or at least some herbal tea.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's true. There are a lot of them here.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I get it, this is bizzarro world where everything is reversed. Greenland isn't sustainable as a country is "emotional" to you?