> It might be confrontational, but that doesn't really matter does it?
> Might Greenland be better off as a U.S. territory than as a Danish territory? Quite possibly!
That there are Americans with this line of thinking just showcases how out of bounds the US have become. This isn't the way of thinking for a peaceful and cooperative world, this is the thinking of imperialism.
I'm ashamed of sharing this same space with people with no respect or regards to sovereignty and actual humans living in places. I'm happy you can freely express it, and I'm happy people have different opinions and perspectives, but some perspectives are so fucked up I lose hope sometimes. I truly hope you can eventually see things from a less violent perspective, god speed.
> That there are Americans with this line of thinking just showcases how out of bounds the US have become. This isn't the way of thinking for a peaceful and cooperative world, this is the thinking of imperialism.
Greenland is already a colonized asset by Denmark. It is not a sovereign country, it has some forms of autonomy granted to it by Danish government. It can vote to go independent and there's a strong chance it will at some point.
As for the U.S. looking out for its own best interests, that is only natural. The U.S. is not an empire. Were Greenland to join the U.S., it would be through approval of Greenland citizens and U.S. Congress and would surely involve a financial incentive package that would be great for everyone involved (Greenland today is dependent on Danish subsidies). Greenlanders would become full U.S. citizens, not imperial subjects.
At any rate, the cost of running a global military and hedging against World War 3 for the last 80 years is pretty expensive. Most of Europe has gotten complacent with Pax Americana and have completely lost touch with the real risks of the real world. Russia would dominate the European continent were it not for U.S. military. How quickly could Russia take Greenland if it wanted to, were it not for the threat of retaliation by U.S. military assets?
If a guy says he's gonna stab you, are you going to try and prepare yourself or are you just going to be like "well it's just words, he hasn't stabbed me yet, I don't know why I should be worried?".
Nobody said he's going to stab you. This is international politics and the stakes are higher than you can imagine, because hypersonic intercontinental Russian nuclear warheads are arrayed across the Arctic ocean from Greenland and Canada and pointed at North America. That's why NORAD has operations out of Greenland. That's why NATO exists. That's why you can't rule out "military action" over Greenland. Greenland can choose to be independent, but the U.S. won't allow them to host Russian nukes or Chinese nukes were it to fall to that as it did with Cuba in the 1960s.
Do you know why Cuba went to the Soviet Union and asked for nukes? Because they needed deterrence after a failed US invasion attempt. Initially, Castro tried to be a good neighbor and even went on a US tour [0].
It was through American arrogance and aggressive attitudes that relations soured to the point where the Cubans thought they needed a deterrent.
It seems you guys still haven't learned your lesson.
France can protect Greenland though and they've signaled they will, including from the US. Attitudes like yours demonstrate why that is needed. Americans are a threat, not a partner.
France can't protect the Louvre from daytime thieves on scooters, it cannot protect Greenland from Russian subs, nukes, and drones. This is delusional.
