From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:05:48 -0500, -hh wrote:   
      
   > On 1/12/26 08:37, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 16:01:26 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/11/26 07:57, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy   
   >>>> the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.   
   >>>   
   >>> A sale requires having two willing parties.   
   >>>   
   >>> In the case of Louisiana, Napoleon in France was racking up huge war   
   >>> expenses and needed cash for their ambition to conquer all of Europe.   
   >>> Initially, the US was looking to buy basically just New Orleans but   
   >>> France offered a lot more at a great price.   
   >>>   
   >>> For Alaska, Russia saw it as a harsh backwater that lacked resources   
   >>> that wasn't making any money, plus risks of military costs (hard to   
   >>> defend; not worth defending economically; potential local domestic   
   >>> population issues), so they were happy (at the time) to find a buyer.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I   
   >>>> can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the   
   >>>> land.   
   >>>   
   >>> Doesn't really matter, because Denmark has said "Not For Sale".   
   >>   
   >> That doesn't mean that they can't be convinced to sell anyway. The land   
   >> is of great interest whereas for the Danes, it's just another piece of   
   >> land that they need to operate to great expense.   
   >   
   > But if it so obviously rich in resources, then why wouldn't Denmark be   
   > interested in keeping that wealth for themselves?   
   >   
   > AFAIC, this is the clue that the motivation here is likely combination   
   > of a further violation of the Emoluments Clause with doing Putin's   
   > bidding to try to break up NATO - neither of which are beneficial to US   
   > citizens.   
      
   The motivation might also be the fact that Greenland is currently   
   surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, at least according to Trump. I   
   don't know if it's true because even if it were, the Russians, the Chinese   
   and the obsolete media would deny it.   
      
   >>>> As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies.   
   >>>> Trump didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a   
   >>>> regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the   
   >>>> importation of drugs.   
   >>>   
   >>> Questionable legality, though.  And the "machine gun" charge is a   
   >>> joke.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so   
   >>>> was only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the   
   >>>> Venezuelan people.   
   >>>   
   >>> It wasn't really any different when Standard Oil was the one doing it.   
   >>   
   >> I imagine that while Standard Oil was there and the operation wasn't   
   >> nationalized, it only made sense that it wouldn't benefit the   
   >> Venezuelan people. After all, it wasn't yet considered a national   
   >> resource. However, once you nationalize a resource, there is an   
   >> expectation and a requirement to have any profits be returned to the   
   >> people.   
   >   
   > But the current plan isn't another nationalization of those resources:   
   > it is to enable private US corporations to 'rape, pillage & burn.'   
      
   We will see what the result of their action is in a few years. I do expect   
   American companies to go in there, but I doubt that they will do so   
   without compensating Venezuela.   
      
   >>>> Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated Trump's   
   >>>> action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war   
   >>>> would have been another matter, especially since the administration   
   >>>> would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the   
   >>>> Democrats would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant   
   >>>> rather than Trump, so this was the only action he could take.   
   >>>   
   >>> Time will tell, particularly the part where this action has   
   >>> destabilized Taiwan and our geopolitical & fiscal interests there.   
   >>   
   >> Taiwan will be destabilized regardless of what happens. The moment the   
   >> globalists decided that they would invest so heavily in Communist China   
   >> when Taiwan is where the real Chinese people reside, it was just a   
   >> matter of time before the powerful one would seek to swallow the other.   
   >> It pains me to know that those people who truly defended China had to   
   >> lose to a demon like Mao and then escape to Taiwan.   
   >   
   > Yes, there's a lot of instability over the decades, but the basic point   
   > here is that these actions have made it substantially worse, not better.   
      
   I would blame the Chinese, not the West for any kind of worsening.   
      
   --   
   CrudeSausage   
   John 14:6   
   Pop_OS!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)