Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ ceejayoz a day ago

They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...

▲shadowtree a day ago | parent [-]

"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.

The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.

It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".

The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".

The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".

Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o

▲ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there).

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"

"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"

etc.

▲ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

> Sure but maybe we have them in a much more important and secure way.

Sure, and maybe the reflecting pool is clean and sparkly.

▲ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

Ah, a truly classic ad hominem.

I do not have to take the Trump administration at its word. I'm not a moron.

▲ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it.

You won’t have to take the Trump administrations word you’ll just have to read the agreement and accept the facts of it even if it doesn’t fit your preconceived political narrative.

▲solid_fuel a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it.

You started the snark. Shallow dismissals do not merit detailed replies.

> You won’t have to take the Trump administrations word you’ll just have to read the agreement and accept the facts of it even if it doesn’t fit your preconceived political narrative.

Here's an idea: Why don't you read the agreement and if it is actually a significant change then you can come back with some facts instead of just blindly trusting the administration just because it makes you feel good.

Until some actual evidence is presented, none of us are required to accept the word of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that they are allergic to the truth.

▲ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> You started the snark. Shallow dismissals do not merit detailed replies.

No I didn’t. Shallow comments shouldn’t be posted to begin with.

> Here's an idea: Why don't you read the agreement and if it is actually a significant change then you can come back with some facts instead of just blindly trusting the administration just because it makes you feel good.

Why do you think it makes me feel good? Donald Trump belongs in jail. He has completely mishandled our relationships. Doesn’t mean that this agreement is the same thing we already had or whatever.

▲ceejayoz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it.

"Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment.

> you’ll just have to read the agreement

Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value.

▲ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> "Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment.

Sure just stop complaining about it then

> Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value.

Ok great story