(01-20-2026, 08:59 PM)Solvedit Wrote: It was far less acceptable and less concealable in the early 2000s. The attitudes of the world had evolved by the early 2000s. The US wasn't far removed from segregation in the early 1970s. I don't think Greenland would have done it if it were capable of managing and getting along with their native population.
The US did not depend on fishing for its income. What the USA may have done would be morally wrong but not indicative that they were having trouble managing or keeping up their NATO obligations.
If most Greenland Danes depend on fishing as their economic prime mover, they may be concerned about being left behind and gentrified if Greenland starts to develop. Addressing this concern may change minds. There probably aren't too many good places to live in Greenland.
The fact that the natives have been resistant to things like mining suggests the Danes can't afford to cut them a good enough deal with the capital they have available to develop Greenland.
So they did it 20-30 years after us and that justifies us leveraging our power to expand our borders?
It gives Trump the right to continue to push for huge foreign policy without congressional approval?
He ran on no new wars, no regime change, not being the global police but we’re going to outright take Greenland because they did forced sterilization, which we did to?
Thats just the right’s Obama. Tell the people what they want to hear, get elected, then tell everyone you know better. If he said he was going into Venezuela, going to take Greenland, and bomb Iran, I seriously doubt he’d have won. Not because Kamila was even viable, but because every president post Bush Jr has ran on being anti war since it left such a bad taste in our mouths.