LogFAQs > #926340559

Broken_Zeus posted...

And you have no footing judging anybody's history if you think 1946 is the "height of the Cold War." It's clearly not by any reasonable metric.

You do understand that "height" does not mean "apex", right? Like, I'm not going to have to explain this to you in painstaking detail, am I? Because this fits an annoying habit of you picking the most miniscule thing you can to quibble about so you don't have to address the larger argument.

Broken_Zeus posted...

Yet you certainly act like it is.

Where did I act like it is?

You're projecting again. You should stop doing that.

Broken_Zeus posted...

Doubly so since every previous time it "wasn't for sale" either

If you think the main problem with this is that it "isn't for sale", you don't seem to have read any of my posts, because I don't even bring that up as an argument (about the closest I get is my statement in the OP that Greenland made an announcement that the country isn't for sale which - and I'm surprised I have to explain this - is not the same thing as me saying that the country isn't for sale).

Broken_Zeus posted...

Because Australia, Britain, Japan, etc, are *exactly* like Greenland?

Never said they were - you really didn't read my posts, did you?

Your argument was that this wasn't a complete clusterfuck of an idea because Greenland is "strategically valuable". My point is that more territory is virtually always strategically valuable and that is *not* the main issue here. The main issue is that Trump is dumb enough that he thinks Denmark will sell him a semi-autonomous piece of their country that is trending towards independence and that he's doing it as the US economy is crippled by a ballooning deficit (thanks to his tax cuts) and looks like it's shuddering towards recession.

And the "strategic value" point rings pretty hollow when you remember this is the same administration that denies that Russia had any role in interfering in the 2016 election (because Vladimir Putin super double-pinky swore that it didn't), despite every foreign intelligence organization the US has, and a bevvy of foreign ones too, all stating otherwise. Trump, along with anthropomorphic shit-stain Mitch McConnell, refuse to put any effort or budget towards bolstering election security and won't even let the Democrat proposals that have passed the house see the light of day, despite the fact that election security should absolutely be a bipartisan issue.

So get the fuck out of here with this "It's a strategic asset" argument - Trump could not give less of a shit about strategy against Russia and even if he did it wouldn't make this move any less boneheaded.

Broken_Zeus posted...

makes it pretty damn likely

Also known as "no evidence"

Again, I'll counter with "the fact that 42 previous administrations didn't make any public offers makes it pretty damn likely the rest were smart enough to realize what a stupid idea the whole thing was."

Broken_Zeus posted...

And, as a general rule, governments tend to consider strategic land purchases.

Of entire semi-independent regions? No, they definitely don't.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!