> If the American press had given me 20 minutes of airtime I could have convinced everyone they don’t want to get involved with Greenland.

On one hand the author recognizes the scope of the “protocol wars” as a rational thing being irrelevant in the actually relevant time span. On the other hand, the author swears that they can bring rationality to a deeply emotional matter through discourse.

▲

dathinab 3 hours ago | parent [-]

you are aware that he doesn't actually believe that he "[...] could have convinced [..]"

it's a manner of speech

a instrument of telling a story

a way to express how completely absurd "US getting involved into Greenland" is for anyone who understands the land (geography/weather) and people even unrelated to geopolitical aspects like alienating allies

	▲	AreShoesFeet000 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My argument stands whether the author meant to be read literally or not. Below the surface it’s still about the tension of rationality and irrationality within social settings.