XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >   
   > 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).   
      
   '“If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will, and I’m not letting   
   that happen,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, despite neither   
   country laying claim to the vast island.'   
      
   >   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)