Push approaching shove

Q: The premier of Greenland said today, 'We prefer to stay with Denmark.'

TRUMP: Who said that?

Q: The premier of Greenland

TRUMP: Well, that's their problem. I disagree with him. I don't know who he is. Don't know anything about him. But that's gonna be a big problem for him.

Will Carney defend Greenland?

29 points · 8 comments · view on lemmy.world

8 Comments

panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 27 pts · 210d

If we don't stick up for Greenland were the next ones on the list.

Its also obviously the right thing to do, bit you can't rely on politicians to be altruistic or moral.

corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 209d (3 replies)

Greenland is a NATO member via Denmark.

I suspect we'll do our duty as part of a NATO response.

Sturgist@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 209d (2 replies)

Article 5, but what does NATO do when the call is coming from inside the house?

tangonov@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 209d (1 reply)

Do we really consider people starting infights as NATO members? There may not be anything written on paper but it feels like the answer should be obvious.

Sturgist@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 209d

Because Article 5 requires unanimous agreement from all members to be invoked, a conflict between two members would lead to an impasse, as the alliance cannot vote to go to war against itself.

The only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

So, obviously members are probably scrambling to work something out, but it might be the end of NATO and the start of something else. NATO without the Yanks, but with blackjack and hookers

BCsven@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 209d (1 reply)

I mean I know some smart people in the USA, but Trump personifies the arrogant idiocy of America.

panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 209d

Yeah, I know a lot of decent and smart Americans.

what’s happening to the US sucks.

wieson@feddit.org · 1 pts · 209d

Hey Canada, would you like a side of Art. 42 (7) Lisbon to that article 5?