Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago#122,741
He filmed himself with a bunch of Greenlanders in MAGA hats saying they want the US to own them and they love Trump. Turns out, he took bunch of homeless people off the street, promised them a hotel meal in return for them faking it. Disgusting.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,168
@previous (A)
I have a theory that the government is probably underreporting the lead levels in the drinking water. I have no evidence but it would explain a lot.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,171
@previous (boof)
Tbh, the Alabama boys aren’t going to be able to successfully invade Greenland. I’ve been down south, if they get once inch of snow one day, for the rest of the year they act like they’ve seen an ice age.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,186
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Seriously though, if the EU is unhappy maybe they should have made their own military instead of relying on the US? These are the consequences.
> Seriously though, if the EU is unhappy maybe they should have made their own military instead of relying on the US? These are the consequences.
The US forbids the EU from doing this. It's better to have them as a servile vassal state trading their economic and geopolitical independence for "protection". Macron suggested an EU army last year and immediately got hauled into the White House for some political reeducation. Now you've got EU states raising their citizens' taxes in order to feed the American military industrial complex because "RUSSIA IS GOING TO INVADE POLAND NEXT!"
> The EU already had independent militaries and EU battlegroups, it's all just underfunded.
It's not "underfunded". The EU is not at risk. Stop listening to American propaganda designed to get Europeans to hand over even more of their money to Raytheon.
> > > The EU already had independent militaries and EU battlegroups, it's all just underfunded. > > > > It's not "underfunded". The EU is not at risk. > > Then defending Greenland shouldn't be a problem!
No amount of extra EU funding of their militaries could defend Greenland from a US invasion. I sense you're starting to realise the con. This is good.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,202
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Enough funding would make it cost prohibitive, and the US wouldn't bother. Both the US and Russia can see low hanging fruit for what it is.
Ah, so you're not seeing the con. OK, I'll try again.
EU funding for its 'militaries' goes directly to Washington. It is not "cost prohibitive" when the people being "invaded" are the ones funding the invasion in the first place.
Anonymous G double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,224
If Europe really wanted to defend Greenland, France could just use one of their nine nuclear submarines to sink a US carrier fleet headed to Greenland with one out of their 290 operational nuclear weapons.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,320
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Aren’t they in NATO tho? If America attacked Denmark, most European countries would be contractually obligated to declare war on the United States.
> > Enough funding would make it cost prohibitive > > Ah, so you're not seeing the con. OK, I'll try again. > > EU funding for its 'militaries' goes directly to Washington. It is not "cost prohibitive" when the people being "invaded" are the ones funding the invasion in the first place.
People forget that Canada literally sent troops straight to Washington, burned the city, turned around and went home one time, and the United States didn’t really stop them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,366
@1,339,177 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Because I don't want to live in a fascist dictatorship with a leader who wants to invade and annex allied countries (or any countries).
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 45 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,372
@previous (A)
Hey at least China is a communist dictatorship so between China and America you can choose if you wanna live in a left wing or a right wing dictatorship.
> EU funding for its 'militaries' goes directly to Washington. It is not "cost prohibitive" when the people being "invaded" are the ones funding the invasion in the first place.
That would still be cost prohibitive, even if they spend their military budget by stocking up on supplies from their enemy. That adds a second problem, but the cost issue is still there.
@1,339,223 (G)
France isn't going nuclear over Greenland.
@1,339,324 (H)
That was 150 years before the United States became the hegemon, don't be stupid.
> That would still be cost prohibitive, even if they spend their military budget by stocking up on supplies from their enemy.
They're not "stocking up on supplies from their enemy". The weapons are American. Their eternal and limitless production is funded by America's "allies and partners" (read: servile client states). NATO is how America maintains military, economic and geopolitical dominance over its rival Europe.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,339,527
Also, when America "won" World War Two, the Soviet Union actually entered Berlin first before we got there. Then in the Pacific war we resorted to nuking and firebombing civilians. Except, that strategy won’t work against Europe because Europe has nuclear weapons. The USSR lost like 30 million people fighting Hitler, America lost like 400,000 but took all the credit. More Americans died from the coronavirus than from World War Two.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,339,528
@1,339,462 (E)
The only reason the United States is a "hegemonic power" is because of our allies in Europe. The United States has allies in Europe and in East Asia, but our allies in East Asia couldn’t actually win a war with China on their own. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan don’t have nuclear weapons because the United States won’t let them have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, North Korea has about 50 nuclear weapons, China has about 600 nuclear weapons, Russia has almost 6,000 nuclear weapons, and Japan only has 792 cities. The United States has 5,000 nuclear weapons, which is fewer than Russia. We have a population of 330 million, China has a population of 1.4 billion. They have 4x our population, and Japan is like 10x smaller than China in terms of population. America isn’t invincible, it’s not as improbable that America and our allies could actually lose a war, but people act like "American hegemony" means we are invincible. Just because we have 800 military bases doesn’t mean anything. The average personnel count of US bases is only like 200 people. Obviously there are bigger bases, but most of them are kinda useless. The idea is if someone attacks a country with a US military base then America will have to go to war with the aggressor and that protects our allies. Except, more than likely everybody in that base would probably just die. If multiple bases around the world were attacked at the same time, we probably wouldn’t win.
(Have to keep clearing cookies because of stupid "site key" error because the owner forgot to pay their recaptcha subscription fee to google.)