XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 13:46:46 -0800,  Alan says...   
      
   > "I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don't do it the   
   > easy way we're going to do it the hard way," he added, appearing to   
   > allude to potential military action.'   
      
   Which could be myriad other things NOT including military action(s).   
      
   Ever heard of sanctions?   
      
   Ever heard of withholding aid?   
      
   Direct Foreign Aid (USAID)   
      
   FY 2024 Actuals: Approximately $545,900.   
      
   FY 2025/2026 Estimates: While the Trump administration has moved to reallocate   
   billions of dollars from USAID into a new "America First Opportunity Fund,"   
   small ongoing projects in Greenland (around $10-$12 million per package in   
   previous years) have historically focused on mining sector development,   
   tourism, and education.   
      
   While we don't give Greenland any "aid" per se, we DO have a military presence   
   there that costs US money, so what we spend on ourselves, might as well count   
   towards aid TO Greenland.   
      
   This concept in international relations, is often called "Implicit Aid" or   
   "Security Assistance by Presence."   
      
   Since Greenland has no standing army of its own, the U.S. military presence   
   acts as a "security umbrella."   
      
   If the U.S. weren't there, the Kingdom of Denmark (and by extension Greenland)   
   would have to spend significantly more of their own GDP to monitor their   
   borders and airspace against Russian or Chinese interests in the Arctic.   
      
   By the U.S. absorbing the billions of dollars in costs for satellite tracking,   
   search and rescue, and Arctic sovereignty patrols, GREENLAND RECEIVES A   
   MASSIVE ECONOMIC BENEFIT-the ability to focus its small budget on social   
   services rather than a military.   
      
   It's important to clarify that the U.S. doesn't give Greenland "aid money" to   
   build its own army. Instead, the U.S. pays to maintain its own massive   
   military presence there, which effectively serves as Greenland's defense   
   umbrella.   
      
   Step 1: The Primary Cost-Pituffik Space Base (Thule)   
      
   The U.S. does not pay "rent" to Greenland or Denmark for its bases. Instead,   
   the "cost" to the U.S. is the operational expense of maintaining Pituffik   
   Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base).   
      
   While the exact classified budget varies, the U.S. spends hundreds of millions   
   of dollars annually to keep this base running. For context, the original   
   construction cost alone was over $500 million, and maintaining a deep-water   
   port and airfield in the Arctic circle requires a constant stream of funding   
   for fuel, logistics, and extreme-weather maintenance.   
      
   This base houses the 12th Space Warning Squadron, which provides 24/7 missile   
   warning and space surveillance. By protecting the "Top of the World" for the   
   U.S. mainland, the U.S. inherently 'defends" Greenland's territory from any   
   foreign incursion.   
      
   =====   
      
   Why we have LEVERAGE, instead of direct "sanctions" or "withholding" aid:   
      
   In a hypothetical scenario where the U.S. "pulls up stakes"-meaning it closes   
   its bases, stops funding, and withdraws its security guarantees-the impact   
   would be felt primarily through a shift in global power and local economics.   
      
   Scenario A - The "Power Vacuum" and Foreign Influence   
      
   If the U.S. leaves, Greenland does not suddenly become "protected" by   
   distance. Because it is strategically located between North America, Europe,   
   and Russia, other superpowers would likely rush to fill the void.   
      
   Chinese Investment: China has already attempted to fund airport expansions and   
   mining projects in Greenland. Without U.S. diplomatic and military pressure   
   blocking these deals, Greenland might be forced to accept 'debt-trap"   
   infrastructure loans from Beijing to keep its economy afloat.   
      
   Russian Arctic Dominance: Russia currently has the world's largest fleet of   
   nuclear icebreakers and is building military bases across the Arctic. Without   
   the U.S. Pituffik Space Base (Thule) monitoring the skies, Russia would have   
   an unhindered "northern gate" to the Atlantic Ocean.   
      
   Scenario B - The Economic and Infrastructure Collapse   
      
   If the U.S. withdrew and ceased all funding, Greenland would face an immediate   
   internal crisis because it lacks the population and tax base to maintain its   
   own modern infrastructure.   
      
   Infrastructure "Ghost Towns": The U.S. military maintains the most advanced   
   airfield and deep-water port in northern Greenland. Without U.S. personnel and   
   funding, these facilities would likely fall into disrepair. Greenland's   
   government would then have to choose between letting them rot or gutting their   
   social programs to keep them open.   
      
   Loss of Technical Expertise: Much of the mapping, search-and-rescue   
   coordination, and weather tracking in the region is provided by U.S. assets. A   
   withdrawal would leave Greenland "blind" in the Arctic, significantly   
   increasing the danger for their fishing fleets and the tourism industry, which   
   are the backbones of their independent economy.   
      
   Stick it, faggot.   
      
   =============================================================================   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition   
      
   All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has   
   been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the   
   point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."   
      
   Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the   
   Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or   
   stages:   
      
   "In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The   
   president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were   
   all it took to change the world."   
      
   "The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's   
   vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of   
   hyperbole."   
      
   "As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from   
   reality."   
      
   The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk   
   opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump   
   announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would   
   suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS.   
   There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be   
   received positively by TDSers.   
      
   The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early   
   2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for late-   
   night comics and nothing more.   
      
   Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)