re: With 20 days to 2 months, Greenland will be ours!! It is 1.25 times bigger than Alaska!!

quote:

---

I am genuinely curious what you are seeing that I am not.

---

The political alignment in Europe is far left (as opposed to just “left).

They have far more in common with China in that regard. The economic links were solidifying that relationship until tariffs made them hit the “slow down” button (because they haven’t paused).

As noted, I don’t trust Europe at this point. I would suggest that their leaders are compromised.

frick , just give them the day care money

Since you brought it up, what ever happened to Alaska?

Pipeline, so much oil, has anything changed ?

quote:

---

Can you point to a single concrete action where Europe sided with China against core U.S. security interests? I can give recent examples where they've sided with us, even when it damaged their economies.

---

Prior to those recent examples (forced by Trump), they were majorly in bed with China.

No Trump = no commitment to the US.

We were the candy store, and they were content to rob us until the shelves were empty.

Again, I would suggest (strongly) that those decisions to “side with us” were done to avoid disaster, not to show support or solidarity.

What do you think that means?

quote:

---

The way out would be for there to be a referendum in Greenland simply asking the people do you want to remain part of Denmark, become a US State like Alaska or become an Independent Country?

---

Offer $1 million to each resident if they choose statehood.

quote:

---

Prior to those recent examples (forced by Trump), they were majorly in bed with China.

No Trump = no commitment to the US.

We were the candy store, and they were content to rob us until the shelves were empty.

Again, I would suggest (strongly) that those decisions to “side with us” were done to avoid disaster, not to show support or solidarity.

---

That framing is inaccurate and still doesn’t get you where you want to go.

First, Europe’s alignment with U.S. security interests predates Trump by decades. NATO basing, intelligence sharing, nuclear deterrence, Balkan interventions, Afghanistan, post-9/11 counterterror cooperation, and coordinated sanctions all existed long before Trump showed up. This is not a recent, coerced phenomenon. I can give you a specific list of examples during the Obama and Biden admins, as well, if you would like.

Second, motivation is irrelevant to the claim you’re making. Alliances are not built on love and affection. They're built on incentives, constraints, and repeated behavior. States act to avoid disaster. That's how strategic alliances work, not evidence of secret hostility.

Third, you keep asserting “in bed with China” without pointing to a single instance where Europe chose China over the U.S. on a core security issue. Trade integration does not equal strategic alignment. If it were, the U.S. itself would qualify as friendly with China. What matters is what happens when trade conflicts with security. Whenever that test has arrived, Europe has aligned with us.

Saying “they only sided with us to avoid disaster” is not evidence of betrayal. It’s evidence that U.S. alignment remains the least bad option. That is how durable alliances behave under pressure.

So we’re back to the same place. You’re imputing intent without behavioral proof. I’m pointing to decades of consistent security alignment that predates Trump and continues despite real economic costs.

If there’s an example where Europe actually chose China against core U.S. security interests, name it. If not, this remains your personal suspicions, not geopolitical analysis.

quote:

---

That position assumes complete Canadian and British not responding the way countries usually respond to changing environments.

---

I would trust China more than Britain or Canada. At least you know that China would mess you over. The Brits, Canucks, Aussies, and Kiwis are no longer trustworthy (at all).

Meh, tell them that they are immediately all enrolled in Medicare and ss.

Done deal