13 hours ago, Malcador said:

 

Considering how bad Trump's prose is it's amazing that his writing style isn't the most embarrassing thing about that, uh, missive. It isn't even the second most embarrassing.

It's ten year old gets hold of the family AOL account and posts on usenet levels, and the ten year old has the excuse of being ten- and doesn't have access to US military.

 

35 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

It's clear that those quotes were part of a summary. I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating a fact.

ironic. 

35 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I'm just telling you you're wrong.

*chuckle*

you never offered a meaningful argument in support o' your conclusion, but you did complain a fair bit about sophistry and semantics in spite o' you being the clown to invoke  grammerly ('cause that meaningful bolstered your contention that there is a western media effort to "embiggen" pahlavi. HA!) and your impotent attempts to redefine ledes. is repetitive buffoonery and includes more than a little o' your trademark deceit where you misrepresent sources.

and 'cause you got a predictable misunderstanding o' logic, is no shock you use strawman wrong, though am thinking this is one o' your ignorance fails as 'posed to deception. strawman is a fallacy where an individual false attribute an argument to another, and then proceeds to knock the stuffing out o' the imagined argument. is not a fantasy that you are bozoing an argument that ledes = meaningful summaries, and that, "The first paragraph of an article is always a summary." is nothing made up about our description o' your argument. you keep doubling down on those points although they don't meaningful advance your material conclusion.

wait, you don't genuine think that 'cause we crafted the old man and the sea lede it counts as strawman, 'cause that would be HI-larious.

so much for your grasp o' your primary school english lessons, eh?

once again, you posted a bunch o' quotes, without links or attribution. naughty.

furthermore, the stories from which you lifted the quotes, relying on nothing save a mindless search engine population, undermine your conclusion that western media were attempting to embiggen the relevance o' pahlavi, while ignoring the fact non western media such as al jazeera were making near identical quotes about pahlavi, and how in spite o' his recent news conference and the hacking efforts interrupting iranian tv, there is extreme few pahlavi stories showing up in a search o' iran + protests. so much for the western embiggen scheme.

serious, zor needs musical accompaniment for his... contributions. 

counting on most people to be unaware when you fib or expecting 'em not to go through the effort o' checking your sources is your schtick.

HA! Good Fun!

 

We need to get a hold of a shaman, I think I've got the solution for our Greenland problem.

 

 

21 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Considering how bad Trump's prose is it's amazing that his writing style isn't the most embarrassing thing about that, uh, missive. It isn't even the second most embarrassing.

It's ten year old gets hold of the family AOL account and posts on usenet levels, and the ten year old has the excuse of being ten- and doesn't have access to US military.

 

Is remarkable how his supposed trolling is acceptable to so many Americans.  

Bessent trying his "don't escalate from our actions" schtick again is laughable at Davos.  Carney gave an interesting speech, was nice to hear him say the rules based order is bull**** mostly  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Senile man giving a press conference now. Poor press corps enduring that  

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/20/trump-musk-doge-social-security-00737245

Who could have seen DOGE turning out this way.

Edited January 20Jan 20 by Malcador

13 hours ago, Gorgon said:

We need to get a hold of a shaman, I think I've got the solution for our Greenland problem.

 

 

I wanted to ask you and @Gorth what is the sentiment from Danes about Greenland normally?

But I am not interested in the media stories around Trumps comments  but the actual opinions of citizens which will vary and I am interested more in the RL connection Danes have for Greenland

And this is not about me trying to support Trumps aspirations about owning Greenland because I dont support that for any of the reasons he has mentioned and I reject his usage of tariffs on several EU countries 

Is Greenland something that the average Dane is proud of, do people go on holiday there and is Greenland just assumed to be part of Denmark when it comes to your history?

What does Denmark gain from " owning"  Greenland, I found this information from a quick search. Is this accurate? ( its standard AI initial feedback so it could be inaccurate )

 

 

What Greenland Offers Denmark:

Strategic Arctic Presence: A strong Danish voice and military footing in the strategically important Arctic region.

International Image: Reinforces Denmark's self-perception as a benevolent global actor, fostering its "good global citizen" status.

Mineral Resources: Potential future revenues from oil, gas, and critical minerals, though extraction remains challenging.

EU Rights (Historically): Previous fisheries access to Greenland's waters contributed to EU development funds for Greenland. 

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

Senile man giving a press conference now. Poor press corps enduring that  

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/20/trump-musk-doge-social-security-00737245

Who could have seen DOGE turning out this way.

Not a surprise at all 

DOGE became the perfect example of a sensationalized and failed Trump policy 

Add to that he brought in Musk who thought public sector and private sector restructuring is the same and it was  almost guaranteed that all the grandstanding and rhetoric on DOGE achievements would end in the failure it became 

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I wanted to ask you and @Gorth what is the sentiment from Danes about Greenland normally?

But I am not interested in the media stories around Trumps comments  but the actual opinions of citizens which will vary and I am interested more in the RL connection Danes have for Greenland

And this is not about me trying to support Trumps aspirations about owning Greenland because I dont support that for any of the reasons he has mentioned and I reject his usage of tariffs on several EU countries 

Is Greenland something that the average Dane is proud of, do people go on holiday there and is Greenland just assumed to be part of Denmark when it comes to your history?

What does Denmark gain from " owning"  Greenland, I found this information from a quick search. Is this accurate? ( its standard AI initial feedback so it could be inaccurate )

 

 

What Greenland Offers Denmark:

Strategic Arctic Presence: A strong Danish voice and military footing in the strategically important Arctic region.

International Image: Reinforces Denmark's self-perception as a benevolent global actor, fostering its "good global citizen" status.

Mineral Resources: Potential future revenues from oil, gas, and critical minerals, though extraction remains challenging.

EU Rights (Historically): Previous fisheries access to Greenland's waters contributed to EU development funds for Greenland. 

AI doesn't *know* anything, it's a predictive algorithm, which means when it comes to something complex and open to interpretation, it often amplifies existing ignorance. For instance, it could very likely be trained on literature that is missing a crucial pov. 

Greenland is a net loss for Denmark, there are mineral rights, sure, but we don't pretend that Denmark profit from those, we just expect that if they strike it rich they will be able to pay their own way. Greenland stays with Denmark because it already has autonomy, and isn't really big enough for afford all the trappings of a state. We don't care about a strong strategic presence, or rather, it's problem to be solved, not a source of prestige. 

after 400 years there are a lot of Greenlanders with Danish roots, Danish is a second language still, so it's not really a question of what Greenland offers Denmark. The arrangement with Danish territories, we have 2, Faroe Islands and Greenland, stands for as long as they want it to.  

Also, Denmark is the colonial power that Greenland eventually made peace with. We made all the same mistakes as the Americans and the Canadians did with the Inuit tribes, but a lot of progress has been made to address them in the last decades. The Greenlanders don't trust the Maga Americans.  They believe, probably correctly, that the minute the ink was dry on an annexation treaty with the US, they would dismiss the rights of indigenous people as they have done so many times in the past.  Denmark meanwhile, has already granted them autonomy. 

34 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

AI doesn't *know* anything, it's a predictive algorithm, which means when it comes to something complex and open to interpretation, it often amplifies existing ignorance. For instance, it could very likely be trained on literature that is missing a crucial pov. 

Greenland is a net loss for Denmark, there are mineral rights, sure, but we don't pretend that Denmark profit from those, we just expect that if they strike it rich they will be able to pay their own way. Greenland stays with Denmark because it already has autonomy, and isn't really big enough for afford all the trappings of a state. We don't care about a strong strategic presence, or rather, it's problem to be solved, not a source of prestige. 

after 400 years there are a lot of Greenlanders with Danish roots, Danish is a second language still, so it's not really a question of what Greenland offers Denmark. The arrangement with Danish territories, we have 2, Faroe Islands and Greenland, stands for as long as they want it to.  

Also, Denmark is the colonial power that Greenland eventually made peace with. We made all the same mistakes as the Americans and the Canadians did with the Inuit tribes, but a lot of progress has been made to address them in the last decades. The Greenlanders don't trust the Maga Americans.  They believe, probably correctly, that the minute the ink was dry on an annexation treaty with the US, they would dismiss the rights of indigenous people as they have done so many times in the past.  Denmark meanwhile, has already granted them autonomy. 

Thanks, this is the feedback I was looking for and expecting and  you have to ask Danes to get it 

The entire Greenland narrative has been hijacked and misrepresented by Trump and the media in general

Its become about Trumps hubris  or how  " important "Greenland is to Denmark but would  anyone be  talking about how " important " Greenland is to Denmark if Trump wasnt trying to force US control over it?

But I do understand the EU pushback because its about the principle and respect  of sovereignty and the rules based order and Trump has now resorted to tariffs to get his way 

So I support the EU position

I just wanted information about the reality of Greenland for Denmark which you have provided 

 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Malcador said:

Senile man giving a press conference now. Poor press corps enduring that  

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/20/trump-musk-doge-social-security-00737245

Who could have seen DOGE turning out this way.

So basically what we all knew from first day on. The real question is, why are they pulling this out of the hat now? Why do they need a fall-guy now? Is just this another attempt to silence the Epstein files that are still not released, over a month since a judge said it all has to be released?

Good job picking this guy.

 

I stopped watching Trumps speeches at live events about 14 months ago and I just follow highlights 

But my stepmom was very angry and asked me to come  watch "what Trump was saying "

So to be polite I watched about 20 minutes of his Davos ramblings and it was the predictable waste of time with  him going off script and peddling revisionist and selective " facts"

He megalomania is getting worse as he gets older, he did make me laugh because he makes such inaccurate points about history and world events 

E.U. halts approval of U.S. trade deal after Trump's Greenland tariff threat

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I wanted to ask you and @Gorth what is the sentiment from Danes about Greenland normally?

But I am not interested in the media stories around Trumps comments  but the actual opinions of citizens which will vary and I am interested more in the RL connection Danes have for Greenland

And this is not about me trying to support Trumps aspirations about owning Greenland because I dont support that for any of the reasons he has mentioned and I reject his usage of tariffs on several EU countries 

Is Greenland something that the average Dane is proud of, do people go on holiday there and is Greenland just assumed to be part of Denmark when it comes to your history?

What does Denmark gain from " owning"  Greenland, I found this information from a quick search. Is this accurate? ( its standard AI initial feedback so it could be inaccurate )

 

 

What Greenland Offers Denmark:

Strategic Arctic Presence: A strong Danish voice and military footing in the strategically important Arctic region.

International Image: Reinforces Denmark's self-perception as a benevolent global actor, fostering its "good global citizen" status.

Mineral Resources: Potential future revenues from oil, gas, and critical minerals, though extraction remains challenging.

EU Rights (Historically): Previous fisheries access to Greenland's waters contributed to EU development funds for Greenland. 

I think Gorgon covered the most important bits really. Disclaimer: I was never a nationalist to begin with, having lived more of my adult life abroad than in Denmark and I believe money is something better spent before you can't use it anymore. So no hoarder of wealth either.

What I do remember from my early years, thinking about Greenland and The Faeroe Islands, can be summed up as "they are". They were part of the realm. Different people, different cultures and interesting history. But not a sense of "ownership". More a sense of bewilderment why anyone would want to live in such cold areas 😄

Do I think of them as "my people"? I probably does on a subconscious level, i.e. never thinking of the people living there as "foreigners". Just fellow citizens with the misfortune of living in a cold climate.

I also know that, Greenland in particular, was not a happy story and Denmark was no benevolent colonial power. Like the Australian Aborigines, the Inuit people were subjected to abuse, atrocities and mistreatment. Eugenics programs, forced sterilization of young women (we are talking modern history here, 1970's) and generations of kids forcefully removed from their parents. Very similar to the Australian "stolen generation" programs. If the people of Greenland resent Denmark, I wont blame them. i still think both parts would benefit of keeping status quo as it is today though. Greenland minding its own business in most aspects, represented in the Danish parliament, the country subsidized by the government in Copenhagen because the living standard is not affordable by the local economy. Iirc, Greenland also has the right to do its own business with investors about the resources they have, so those minerals etc. are not disposable income for the government in Copenhagen.

17 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I think Gorgon covered the most important bits really. Disclaimer: I was never a nationalist to begin with, having lived more of my adult life abroad than in Denmark and I believe money is something better spent before you can't use it anymore. So no hoarder of wealth either.

What I do remember from my early years, thinking about Greenland and The Faeroe Islands, can be summed up as "they are". They were part of the realm. Different people, different cultures and interesting history. But not a sense of "ownership". More a sense of bewilderment why anyone would want to live in such cold areas 😄

Do I think of them as "my people"? I probably does on a subconscious level, i.e. never thinking of the people living there as "foreigners". Just fellow citizens with the misfortune of living in a cold climate.

I also know that, Greenland in particular, was not a happy story and Denmark was no benevolent colonial power. Like the Australian Aborigines, the Inuit people were subjected to abuse, atrocities and mistreatment. Eugenics programs, forced sterilization of young women (we are talking modern history here, 1970's) and generations of kids forcefully removed from their parents. Very similar to the Australian "stolen generation" programs. If the people of Greenland resent Denmark, I wont blame them. i still think both parts would benefit of keeping status quo as it is today though. Greenland minding its own business in most aspects, represented in the Danish parliament, the country subsidized by the government in Copenhagen because the living standard is not affordable by the local economy. Iirc, Greenland also has the right to do its own business with investors about the resources they have, so those minerals etc. are not disposable income for the government in Copenhagen.

Thanks, its important to get collaboration with this type of feedback. I am going to share what you guys have mentioned with my family because we currently discussing Greenland and  what the US wants to do and  my SA family dont know any Danes to get personal feedback so forum feedback like this is important 

Its interesting you and @Gorgon mentioned Danish Colonialism because its not something I was aware of. In all the discussions and research  I have done  about European Colonialism its almost all around Africa so Denmark was never mentioned. But I see there was 1 Danish colony which I had never heard of 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Gold_Coast

Just for the record I have watched lots of interviews with Greenlanders lately and none of them seemed to have a negative opinion of Denmark and they all prefer the current setup  to being annexed by the USA 

Its probably because the anxiety of becoming Trump's latest "win "  is much more real than what happened in the past and Denmark has made amends as Gorgon mentioned?

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Its probably because the anxiety of becoming Trump's latest "win "  is much more real than what happened in the past and Denmark has made amends as Gorgon mentioned?

I do not doubt for a second either, that if Greenland didn't have friends and connections, ICE would march in and relocate the Inuit population to some tiny reservation in the Florida glades, for their own protection of course, while Greenland is being strip mined. Painful colonial past does seem preferable to a painful colonial present

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-pauses-greenland-tariffs-rcna255270

Repeat in 6 months. 

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I do not doubt for a second either, that if Greenland didn't have friends and connections, ICE would march in and relocate the Inuit population to some tiny reservation in the Florida glades, for their own protection of course, while Greenland is being strip mined. Painful colonial past does seem preferable to a painful colonial present

Come on, that's not mean enough. They'd rendition them all to Liberia 

So I'm guessing he backed down completely. Claiming victory for something he could have gotten with no effort.

I think Europe and Canada discovered that it feels empowering not to be a bunch of pussies. They would do it again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/trump-greenland-threats-diplomacy-force.html

"The announcement followed a NATO meeting on Wednesday where top military officers from the alliance’s member states discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the United States sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where the United States could build military bases, according to three senior officials familiar with the discussion."

19 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/trump-greenland-threats-diplomacy-force.html

"The announcement followed a NATO meeting on Wednesday where top military officers from the alliance’s member states discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the United States sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where the United States could build military bases, according to three senior officials familiar with the discussion."

Once again this sounds exactly like what they can do already right now. 

Pretty much. Apparently just talking first isn't Alpha Male enough. 

Edited January 21Jan 21 by Malcador

That would be classic Trump "negotiating" at work: rip up the agreement we had, bluster and threaten, get the same deal or a little better or maybe even a little worse (at the cost of a lot of good will), announce to the world how brilliant he is and that he got what he wanted.

8 hours ago, Gorgon said:

So I'm guessing he backed down completely. Claiming victory for something he could have gotten with no effort.

I think Europe and Canada discovered that it feels empowering not to be a bunch of pussies. They would do it again.

The USA was never going invade Greenland, that was just the expected sensationalism and SM drama with this story. There were comparisons to the regime change in Venezuela to how Greenland was going to be annexed and they not remotely the same thing for various reasons that include how Congress wont support any military action over the taking of Greenland despite the rhetoric from  several of Trumps spokespeople. Would they declare Greenland an example of narcoterrorism  

Trump initially tried the threat of  economic bullying to try to take Greenland through tariffs and now he was dropped that idea 

We dont know what this " framework " deal is he suggested and I doubt  he even knows. But yes the EU and Canada stood there ground and it was good to see some backbone but its what you expect because as we discussed this was about the  future  of a sovereign territory that is part of an EU country and they had to draw a line