139
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
139 points (98.6% liked)
World News
58158 readers
1636 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Harsh. Why is it so dumb?
Because 1. You're avoiding the bad thing maybe forcefully happening by guaranteed allowing it to happen and 2. You are inviting bad things to happen again because you have shown you will allow it.
Oh, an invasion would be so, so much worse than two more military bases. Dead soldiers, broken alliances, the future of the Inuit people lost.
The establishment of US bases in Greenland has been expressly allowed since 1951. This is nothing new. Threats and grandstanding have achieved nothing which couldn't have been achieved easier and with better publicity through collaboration.
I can't really explain with logic what is being misunderstood due to naivety.
Isn't naivety the block to understanding that's MOST receptive to being resolved by new information?
Don't give up before you've even tried!
I'm perfect able to follow a logical argument, but I may indeed not be able to see what you consider obvious until you point it out.
I think you're fucking with me playing dumb.
There's no way you don't understand, even if you don't agree.
But if you aren't....would you let foreign war equipment into your country from a country that had threatened to take you by force?
Obviously not.
Greenland is done unless MAGA is stopped, full stop.
Edit: I disagree with your premise that they could have gotten the same results without the threats, therefore this must be benign. At least that's what I think you're saying.
I'm not. I've followed the US in Greenland with interest for a long time, and read the analyses of the recent deal. I don't think my position is dumb. The US have been flirting with the annexation of Greenland since WW2, and Danish diplomatic counter strategy has always been to allow the US unfettered military access in return for acknowledging that Greenland is part of the Danish kingdom and will remain so. Trump has messed with this relationship, but it is now more or less normalized (for now). This is the best Denmark could've hoped for, realistically.
There was already plenty there. And Denmark couldn't defend Greenland if the US invaded, doesn't matter if there is one or three military bases there.
Denmark has been bending backwards for decades to serve as loyal vassals to the US. They joined their illegitimate wars without question. If the US asked for two more bases and whatever else is in the agreement, they would have gotten it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Edit: Of particular relevance:
Appeasement can be seen as promoting frozen conflicts and rewarding aggression from a game-theoretical point of view.[134] If the defensive player is willing to appease, the offensive player is incentivised to create the conditions to be appeased by their opponent.
I am familiar with the concept. What's the point you're trying to make, exactly? How does it fit into the context I laid out above?
I could try to guess your implied point, but I don't think that's useful for the conversation.