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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours 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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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