Pragmatist2025

quote:

---

People said the same thing about the Panama Canal. Guess what?

---

I’m not certain of the correlation, but I’m open to hear it. I was simply saying that his statement was about something that was already codified by NATO and more recently agreed upon as far as investment by Denmark & the U.S.

If somehow NATO was dissolved, a sovereign Denmark wouldn’t agree to it and the U.S. certainly wouldn’t allow it to happen.

Per his statement, he said no adversary could ever build a base or have a military presence in Greenland. That was already forbidden as they are a member of NATO(Denmark). Outside of a small military presence of Denmark, the U.S. has the only other. Denmark did not want to augment that because they didn’t want it used as a military ‘staging’ area, which is essentially what this is.

A German threat occurred about 80 years ago but was quickly expelled. The only other threats posed to Greenland were actually by the U.S. 50+ years ago by contaminating portions Greenland with nuclear material and most recently the threats made by the President. As Denmark has no means of stopping the U.S. from doing what we want, an agreement was pretty much inevitable.

As for investments, a few attempted Chinese investments all fizzled out rather quickly. China does buy a lot of their fish though. The U.S. already has a security agreement to prevent any continuation of such. The in-ground resources that some mention will cost $100’s of billions or more to obtain, transport and refine on any large scale for an extended period for what is known. Analysts believe it could run into the trillions to actually find and secure what is unknown.

Ironically the U.S. already sits on a comparable amount of proven minerals but we choose to outsource most and have not developed the refineries of like China has even if they were attained. So, I suppose that the bases are the biggest win in this agreement presently.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

---

Who are the Amalekites presently?

quote:

---

All he had to do is let the IAEA in to all sites.

---

EVERY country should allow the IAEA in for inspections and should also sign the non-proliferation treaty. Same standard for all seems fair, and we should distance ourselves from countries who refuse.

quote:

---

The halftime adjustments are made, and we kick the shite out of them (all due respect) in the second half.

---

Though La. Tech is not Kentucky, Alabama basically did the same thing yesterday. Lethargy in one half is not necessarily indicative of a bad team, and yes, good coaching definitely helps.

quote:

---

I heard someone say the other day that Trump should have just gone to the Iranians and said, I may not love this agreement, but get rid of the sunset provisions and I'll extend it.

---

His top advisors told him to be patient at the time and do just that. They all either resigned or were fired and of course they were then vilified. The same thing has happened this go-round.

Some of their spots were filled with Haley, Pompeo (s), & Bolton, all ultra-neocons. BTW, Iran didn’t violate the terms of the JCPOA until one year AFTER the President withdrew the U.S. as a signatory and ramped up the sanctions. There is a lot of Sean Hannity type revisionist history surrounding all of it.

quote:

---

but the mere impossibility of this scenario is seldom analyzed.

---

quote:

---

Begin

---

I may have erred in the use of ‘impossibility’. I would amend it to ‘overwhelmingly improbable.’

They are an unarmed, untrained large and spread out population with no real way to mobilize and develop the logistics necessary to launch an offensive against a large ideological fighting force. There is no evidence that there is any cohesion of militias spread out over a vast country necessary to even posit a real revolt. There is no evidence of a unified ideology among their populace to challenge their government and military. The moderates in their government are in fear for their lives and has been reported that in several cases some have been killed for suggesting a change the in course of action.

There is also no evidence that the required mutiny among their decentralized military forces to create any feasibility of a revolt is present. The misery index (a real thing) is at a historical high due to the near worthlessness of their currency and the growing scarcity of resources. In other words they are in survival mode more than fighting mode.

Though to an unknown degree, the attack of their nation by foreign powers and assassination of their leaders has created national unity against the these nations. It is historically the case to hold (to a great degree) these nations responsible for their dire situation.

We romanticize the idea of breaking the chains of tyranny because it is the foundational principle in the birth of our nation. It is blind optimism to think that this alien mindset will blossom 250 years later in a country beset by war and no organizational structure for its genesis.

Those things are the basis of my opinion.

quote:

---

No I try to save money where I can. Liberals pay with government monies. Welfare and foodstamps.

---

You sound a lil like El Gaucho.

quote:

---

The IRGC has the guns and the people aren’t hungry yet. Once the food runs out, they’ll have to choose between starvation or the IRGC bullets.

---

This narrative is taking hold again since the President’s recent statement about the Iranian people taking back their country. Their situation was bad before, but after 6 months of bombing, blockades, and stiffened sanctions, their currency is worthless, inflation is crippling, unemployment is rampant and rationing of basic services is increasing.

Is ‘we are going to increase poverty and misery until you do something’ the ideal here? I can’t imagine this was their expectation when they were told help is on the way . However, destruction of more vital infrastructure and increased desperation might just be the kick in the pants for untrained and unarmed civilians to defeat the bad guys with guns. If not, their ungratefulness is duly noted and fault lays squarely on them, yes?

quote:

---

Both things could be true. We could both have more than we need and we could also be stockpiling them for "frick you, that's why" reasons.

---

In your opinion, do you think that it is possible that this ‘incursion’ was expected to be more Venezuela-like and that more munitions were expended than planned? I understand the need for a confident message to the citizenry and to adversaries but hyperbole is one of the President’s trademarks.

Whatever the case, the PR campaign throughout this has not been top notch in my view.