your silly silly argument is akin to saying if we have a dispute with mexico about an island in the middle of the rio grande, and are doing a summit and unsigned treaty about it, you can declare the whole border fake and take back el paso and big bend.
complete crap.
i am sure russia mouths the words and then takes the land back, but it's not because crimea was in dispute. there's a treaty. they had to lease it to use the base.
Europe does not have a functional military. Even if it did it could not supply it for more than a month or two.
you're being transactional and silly. if the US was in a war with canada -- since your party seems so eager -- and canada had part of maine -- do you think for a second we'd just stop the war before the exhaustion point and hand them half of maine?
let's be real. even an inch of maine?
you're full of crap.
you're wanting to wash your hands of it and this is your lame excuse. take your L. give up your land. assume they won't start a third war without any guarantees.
are you 12?
Canada does not have the military power to keep an inch of US territory. Just like Ukraine doesn't have the ability to keep an inch of Russia in the long run.
Your analogy demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.l
Your posts are all over the place. Are you mentally ill or trolling?
you're being transactional and silly. if the US was in a war with canada -- since your party seems so eager -- and canada had part of maine -- do you think for a second we'd just stop the war before the exhaustion point and hand them half of maine?
let's be real. even an inch of maine?
you're full of crap.
you're wanting to wash your hands of it and this is your lame excuse. take your L. give up your land. assume they won't start a third war without any guarantees.
are you 12?
Canada does not have the military power to keep an inch of US territory. Just like Ukraine doesn't have the ability to keep an inch of Russia in the long run.
Your analogy demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.
Your posts are all over the place. Are you mentally ill or trolling?
war of 1812 not ring a bell? the brits and canadians burned the white house down before we won it.
and do you struggle with hypotheticals? the point is not could they do it. the point is would we trade away anything. no.
russia has 21% interest rates. russia does not have an infinite indefinite ability to fight a high tech war, either. they are basically being propped up by china buying their oil and goods.
the charity vs. profit discussion is kind of bs. europe does more of a loan percentage than we do. but no one is getting paid until this is over.
even this mining rights grab, they aren't going to be de facto peacekeepers like in syria. no one is going to a war zone to do geological testing in the middle of a high tech war like this. it's asking for the last thing they see to be a drone buzzing their way before it explodes.
until then all this is theoretical paper stuff. if they stop fighting. if ukraine gets on its feet. then maybe the difference between aid and loans matters.
and it's dishonest crap to say i don't like that the europeans get more on loan terms, as an excuse to DO NOTHING.
but let's be real, trump's lame game is public threats then backpedaling to what he could have had without the threats. because his voters want to see macho bs.
so we will threaten to do nothing then slide towards loan terms on aid. which i am sure ukraine would do anyway because they do it for europe. you don't have to be a d*ck about it. except i guess you folks like to look like one for some reason.
and that sort of behavior is usually reserved for enemies and not allies. and if you have the two confused why are we aiding ONE SIDE and sanctioning THE OTHER? even under trump. load. of. crap. good guy and bad guy are obvious.
He has the authority to nominate a replacement that needs to be confirmed by the Senate. He has not done that. He does not have the authority to fire her.
Semantics.
Replacing her is firing her.
But he didn’t replace her. He fired her, which is not how the process works. So, no, not semantics.
"zero" national interest in ukraine is crap. it boils down to what do you assess russia's endgame is. if they intend to reinstate by force the commie bloc then this is going to be a shooting war perhaps as far over as central europe, that we will get yanked into and better to cut it off at ukraine and georgia than fight it in berlin. smarter, cheaper, safer, etc. did you not read your WW2 or cold war texts?
you're also ignoring the ahem nazi problem of turning european defense over to them and primarily germany. we got yanked into 2 world wars in europe by laissez faire and trusting germany to behave and europe to balance itself.
you also seem to be selling the trumpian crap where we do america first here when we don't even have the americas locked down and are freaking out about who owned ports in panama.
i don't think you've considered that a budget-neutered US isn't going to be able to afford to do crap about crap, even in its hemisphere, much less taiwan, europe, etc. there won't be the money. even if you leave money in the budget for planes and tanks, we won't have the leftover money to spend to use them.
re "zero," also, you're full of it inasmuch as half the point to throwing around something like the mineral rights deal is to suggest -- perhaps insincerely -- to ukraine that you would then have more skin in the game, back them in the talks, etc. even if you don't care and just want the deed.
Canada does not have the military power to keep an inch of US territory. Just like Ukraine doesn't have the ability to keep an inch of Russia in the long run.
Your analogy demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.l
Your posts are all over the place. Are you mentally ill or trolling?
"zero" national interest in ukraine is crap. it boils down to what do you assess russia's endgame is. if they intend to reinstate by force the commie bloc then this is going to be a shooting war perhaps as far over as central europe, that we will get yanked into and better to cut it off at ukraine and georgia than fight it in berlin. smarter, cheaper, safer, etc. did you not read your WW2 or cold war texts?
you're also ignoring the ahem nazi problem of turning european defense over to them and primarily germany. we got yanked into 2 world wars in europe by laissez faire and trusting germany to behave and europe to balance itself.
you also seem to be selling the trumpian crap where we do america first here when we don't even have the americas locked down and are freaking out about who owned ports in panama.
i don't think you've considered that a budget-neutered US isn't going to be able to afford to do crap about crap, even in its hemisphere, much less taiwan, europe, etc. there won't be the money. even if you leave money in the budget for planes and tanks, we won't have the leftover money to spend to use them.
There's zero risk of Russia turning back into communists. There's even less risk of Russia invading Europe.
Germany has been so thoroughly emasculated there is zero chance of them ever being a threat to anyone ever again. Germany killed its own industrial base and won't even defend its own women from migrant rapists. Germany is dead.
The US not spending billions on stupid things will free up money to spend on useful things. None of which include babysitting Europe or funding European wars.
trump does not want peace. trump wants out and as with afghanistan whatever happens when he leaves, happens. he is selfish that way. if he can help it, i think he'd even sign the treaty late in his term and dump the consequences on a successor who can be blamed. like he did with biden. you agree to pull out. you literally set a public date. you know the strength of the adversary you have been fighting. and then you don't expect a Fall of Saigon?
trump's game here is first squeeze his mining "greenland" out while pretending it might make him care more.
he then would either want out, and blame ukraine for what happened, or cajole them to make peace, then try and take credit, even if he's basically asking for one side to concede everything and the other belligerent side doesn't even want to stop fighting, sends drones buzzing in on the day of the talks.
nah, he didn't like zelensky didn't help him on the call, so he's more than happy to cut the rope and let them float off. or they can hand russia everything and us their mines and he will take credit for bending them over. which does not feel like a lasting peace to me.
But he didn’t replace her. He fired her, which is not how the process works. So, no, not semantics.
He didn't perp walk her out. She's still there being useless.
He tried to “remove [her] from the FEC with immediate effect”. It’s only because she called him on his illegal attempt to subvert democratic norms that she’s still there.
Canada does not have the military power to keep an inch of US territory. Just like Ukraine doesn't have the ability to keep an inch of Russia in the long run.
Your analogy demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.l
Your posts are all over the place. Are you mentally ill or trolling?
He didn't perp walk her out. She's still there being useless.
He tried to “remove [her] from the FEC with immediate effect”. It’s only because she called him on his illegal attempt to subvert democratic norms that she’s still there.
What law did he attempt to break by not following "norms"?
Greenland will be American/MAGA by end of 2025. The world better get used to it. I'm sure the enemy Chinese are already freaking out over the prospect.
Just checking in on the timeline. How far along are we in this matter of national security?
“We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. If you take a look at Greenland, you look up and down the coast, you have Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need it for national security. We have to have it"
President Donald Trump discusses Greenland acquisition plans after the U.S. military captures Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, citing national security needs.
“We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. If you take a look at Greenland, you look up and down the coast, you have Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need it for national security. We have to have it"
This shows how much dementia and drugs are going on in the Republican party. They already have access to military bases and can put as many soldiers as they would like on Greenland.
So how weakening Nato will help national security is beyond me. How would the war on terror have been without Nato? Then every single terrorist would have put their eyes on US only, and US would have billions more in debt...
The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent - Not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
