leicsmac

This is reasonable and has been the playbook so far from most of the European and Anglosphere nations. It has gotten us to this stage, so has it really been effective in terms of neutralising the threat represented? The current US administration, and those that follow them like a cult, are going to do what they want no matter what diplomatic response is given to them. If they need outrage or grievance to justify their action, they simply make it up, lie about it, and then proceed. They cannot or will not be reasoned with. If that isn't obvious now, I'm not sure when it will be. A different approach is surely needed.

And the really sad thing was that all of this was so, so obviously predictable a decade ago. I think a lot of those people simply wanted to see people they consider "other" hurt and suffer (and, to be honest, I think anyone who still holds the above beliefs absolutely does, there can be no other motivation now). What they didn't realise is that hurt could and would end up visiting them, too.

Again, assuming this to be true, firstly I'm not sure why what Starmer says or doesn't say or does or doesn't do matters so much to you in that case given that everything he could or would say or do leads to the same outcome, and secondly I'm not sure "sorry mate, there's nothing we could do, we had no options" is the best explanation to offer to the Greenlanders in the near future and a lot more people in the slightly further future if everything goes pear-shaped should Trump run amok. Not sure they'd really accept it as much of an excuse. Thankfully, I think there is options, such as reciprocal tariffs, debt dumping and other economic measures that would act as a potent answer, but only if applied across a united front that includes Europe and a large chunk of the Anglosphere that isn't the US. Unity will be critical. The mean weakness in this matter (if not being good at war is a weakness, anyway) that the US has isn't military, it's political. They have shown from recent conflicts that they lack the political will to keep going once the cost in money and blood rises to a degree that enough people there are uncomfortable with. That's why both the North Vietnamese and the Afghan Taliban ended up winning their contests by default, because they simply waited for the US to run out of that political will.

And, ultimately, decisive action. He doesn't care about that. He wants the land and the resources, and he feels justified in taking them by whatever means. While I agree with the calling out, that doesn't get anyone much closer to actually stopping what's going on. And it needs to be stopped.

Fine, taking that as assumed, I wouldn't mind hearing about the edited part of my post above.

What happens to that world's biggest economy if most everyone does? Edit: if that kind of measure is off the table, I'm wondering what would be a fair response to the current actions of the US government. If any.

Unfortunately, given current world events, it would seem the the latter are setting the tone and the pace on behalf of the former. Which is everyone's problem, including those simply "right of centre".

If Trump does enough to truly alienate the world (like through actually using the military to attack Greenland), I think it's possible enough Repub Congress members will finally say enough is enough. But only possibly.

Purely on paper he shouldn't be. He was elected in a free and fair electoral process (as far as can be ascertained) and the country he is leader of does still have working checks and balances against him (again, as far as can be ascertained). To use a more precise definition of what the man is, he should be labelled as an enemy of human future, human progress and of life itself in a way that a great many dictators of history would envy, and the parts of the world actually caring about that that are in his crosshairs need to act accordingly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm24k6kk1rko The Canadians choosing to back a different horse. Funny, that.

Yup, an unholy sin right there. The interest in the suffering and death of brown people in the Middle East that's near to pornographic is just the cherry on top.

In an attempt to actually get this thread back on topic... Lindsey Graham.

Well, given the other players in this are all about the binary choices, the UK may well end up having to pick a side rather than hedging their bets.

You really would think our young and fragile species would really have the smarts to worry about more than self interested divisions among itself like other animals.

It really isn't surprising. I just find the blatant lies and doublespeak linked with the blatant sociopathy offensive to the senses. The only reason I can think of that someone would kid themselves in the way you describe is either extremely naive or someone cut from similar sociopathic cloth to the current US administration who approves of what they're up to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno "Welcoming parties" don't make threats, you disingenuous hillbilly.

May I introduce people to the concept of... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

And that kind of cognitive dissonance between perception of importance and actual quantifiable importance in terms of effect is a pretty massive problem in the field of actually getting necessary stuff done right now imo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp37kpqpdq2o Fan service, but only if you're the "right" kind of fan.

This person has (reasonably) high office in the most powerful nation in the world.

Is it possible that this Greenland matter might incite enough Republican Congress members to grow a conscience (or just self-preservation) for impeachment proceedings to be viable?

More to the point of "if there are actually any historians left at that time". Do agree it's very all or nothing right now, which is one of the reasons why I take the threats so seriously.

I think we might want to wait a few decades to see the overall level of harm done before coming to that judgement, to be honest.

He's sad that he's now likely going to miss some new "brown people suffering and dying" content for his spank bank.

If that was believed vague, then answering it with what appears to be equal vagueness perhaps isn't the best way forward. No offence taken, but the laws of physics and their consequences are what they are, we can't hide from them and the only choice, politically or otherwise, is to take action against the incoming problems or not. Pretending that they don't exist won't end well for anyone. In any case, @Sampson makes a better argument upstream in why checks and balances in government policymaking are a good thing and why anyone wanting to get rid of them is not. Edit: just noticed something, and I'm interested to know what kind of resident in the UK would use "offense" with the "s" rather than the "c".