Oh, sorry I got you mixed up. Docphil brought up Israel/Palestine and then you responded to something I said to him.

The problem was NATO(at the behest of EVERY member state except Turkey) was moving weapons into Ukraine for years, and were willing to accept Ukraine into NATO. Turkey was a barrier to Ukraine's ascension, but not to their arming. Trying to say that all the other countries aren't responsible because they weren't talking to Russia is bullshit. Talking wasn't the problem. They were arming Ukraine. What caused(or at least provided justification for) the invasion were the ACTIONS, not the words of NATO, which once again was supported by Denmark and France and Germany, and all the rest. Why won't you say that they invited Russia to invade Ukraine? Were they all just too stupid to see this eventuality? Poor innocent, naive Europe.

i can concede this point.

What you have outlined re: the 2014-2021 arming of Ukraine does to my mind make the EU morally bankrupt and stupid. Their actions and refusal to stop, pause or reconsider, even now, is the height of Darwinism.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 10 2026 06:33am

It's unfortunate that the bullet missed.

US military strikes Islamic State group targets in Syria, officials say - Saturday 11th Jan. BBC: The US and its partner forces have carried out large-scale strikes against Islamic State (IS) group targets in Syria, the US Central Command (Centcom) has announced. US President Donald Trump directed the strikes on Saturday, which are part of Operation Hawkeye Strike.

As I understand the partner here is Jordan, not Israel.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 10 2026 06:35pm

Financial Times via Tass -

EU countries lack a coherent strategy to counter potential US attempts to take over Greenland, the Financial Times (FT) newspaper wrote. European countries also do not have a strategy to prevent the bribery of Greenland's residents or the coercion of the autonomous region into seceding from Denmark, which are considered more likely events, according to the publication. US President Donald Trump has the upper hand in any case and will respond with a stronger blow or make more serious threats, the paper noted.

European leadership circles are considering retaliatory measures, including closing US military bases or banning the purchase of US Treasury bonds. However, according to the publication, the chances of the EU countering the US are slim. European leaders prefer to use strategic pressure on Trump to allegedly maintain Washington's support for Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly stated the need for Greenland to join the United States. Even during his first term, he proposed purchasing Greenland, and in March 2025, he expressed confidence that it could be annexed.

Greenland is part of Denmark as an autonomous territory. Since 1979, it has had the legal right to declare independence by referendum. The United States and Denmark are founding members of NATO. In 1951, Washington and Copenhagen signed the Greenland Defense Treaty. In accordance with this agreement, the US committed to defend the island from external aggression.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2026 04:24pm

didnt have murica starting ww3 in 2026 on my bingo card

Trump’s Viewpoint: Trump’s approach to Greenland is rooted in ownership and sovereignty — he wants to annex Greenland into the United States, akin to the German concept of Lebensraum. He does not seek military access (he already has that) or partnership (he is like Joey — he does not share his food); he wants the island to become part of the United States. For him, Greenland is a strategic asset that can be acquired, controlled, and integrated, both for its Arctic location and its natural resources. From this perspective, it is too far from Europe to be effectively defended, its population is too small to be relevant, and Europe has no army capable of intervening. While the EU debates creating an army of 100,000 men, Russia alone fields one million, and China two million. Meanwhile, the United States maintains the strongest military in the world, making Europe’s options effectively nonexistent. In Trump’s view, Europe must simply accept this reality.

EU / Western Allies’ Viewpoint: In contrast, the EU and its allies see Greenland as a strategic partner rather than property. Their approach emphasizes cooperation and influence: granting the U.S. more military bases, logistics support, and operational presence, but always under Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty. From this perspective, access and partnership are sufficient to meet U.S. strategic goals. The EU interprets Trump’s interest as a desire for operational privileges, joint defense arrangements, and Arctic cooperation, rather than full annexation or ownership of the island.

Key Misalignment: The core misunderstanding between Trump and the EU stems from a fundamental difference in worldview. The U.S. pursues its interests directly and decisively. The EU, operating under the presumption that the U.S. is the world’s policeman, assumes it can accommodate U.S. interests. Currently, the EU mistakenly believes that increased access and cooperation satisfy U.S. objectives, effectively treating Greenland as a tenant would treat a property. Trump, however, has made it clear that he simply wants to possess Greenland. This divergence creates a strategic mismatch: the EU offers what Trump already has, while Trump seeks something the EU does not own.

The reality is that Europe is a broken record. Even now, it seeks to increase sanctions on Iran at the behest of the U.S., aiming to provoke regime change after Western sanctions have already crippled the country. It is telling that the EU continues to do the U.S.’s bidding, while the U.S. signals its intention to acquire land larger than France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, and Finland combined. The EU believes this is about security — it is not. It is about acquisition.

So in a display of solidarity, a bunch of EU countries sent token representatives to Greenland. A bipartisan group of US Congressmen also went.

In response, Donald Trump has imposed sanctions, whoops, sorry, i meant, tarriffs, on these countries. I guess these Congressmen will be labeled traitors and shot in the head like that poor woman was last week, for defying "the rule of law" better known as might is right.

Also, at the same time he talks about The Dome - which is intended to be an ultimate defense against nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Basically he wants to destabilize the world and start world war 3. There were multiple treaties put in place, between the superpowers, to prevent this from happening. Once you have an ultimate defense you can bomb any country, regardless of whether they have nukes or not. thats exactly what he wants to do.



This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 17 2026 03:16pm

A brief blurb on US strategy re: Nuclear Deterrent.

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had nuclear weapons that could wipe out cities. Everyone understood that if one side started a nuclear war, the other side would hit back and everyone would lose.

In 1972, they made the ABM Treaty. It said: don’t build a big missile shield. Why? Because if one country thought it could block nuclear attacks, it might get ideas about attacking first. No shield meant no illusions. Later treaties like SALT and START limited how many nuclear weapons each side could have. These deals only made sense because missile defenses were kept limited. The danger stayed balanced, so nobody tried anything stupid. In 2002, the United States quit the ABM Treaty by itself so it could build missile defenses. In 2019, it quit another major nuclear treaty. By 2026, the last big agreement limiting nuclear weapons is expiring.

The rule was always simple: If you can’t protect yourself, you don’t start a nuclear war. Once you start chasing “perfect defense,” you make everyone else build more weapons — and the world gets more dangerous, not safer. With this last treaty expected to expire later this year and with the US increasing using violence to attack its enemies, its not a question of if the US will, F Around and Find Out, but when. With an assassination attempt on Vladimir Putin last month and a build up of forces around China, things are warming up.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 17 2026 03:27pm