Surely it should read, The US WILL recognize it as an act of aggression. Or is it actually stating colonisation by a European country is NOT an act of aggression. I know we speak the same language, mostly, but to me that statement makes very little sense, and appears to be using a lot more words than is necessary.
Pete is a human being and belongs to Homo sapiens as you do and therefore is entitled to the same respect and treatment as you would want and expect from any other human.
I can’t make sense of this either? So if a European power, obviously not Denmark, attempted to colonise Greenland, that wouldn’t be recognised as an act of aggression by the US? The first two points quoted seem pretty clear, especially the second one, the US will not interfere with existing European colonies. There is obviously a new addition to this, written by Trump - ‘except where invading a European colony would bring personal financial benefit to Trump’. Obviously he is treating the Monroe Doctrine with the same level of disrespect that he has displayed to the constitution of the US, which Im pretty sure he swore to uphold.
If you find other things written in 1823 it may help you. Or do you also tear apart Shakespear phrasing. LOL.
I never said any of that. Ok, Nigel, next Christmas when I walk into your home on Christmas day I want a gift under your tree with my name on it.
I still don’t have an explanation for the Monroe statement: The U.S. will not interfere with existing European colonies.and the words of Vance and Rubio stating that the US of A is going to acquire Greenland one way or the other. Unless Monroe was using the words “interfere with” in some outdated way, such as “sexually assault”.
But the US doesn't need to own it or invade it in order to do that. Does it. Never been into Shakespeare, forsooth.
So far Greenland hasn’t had any threats at all from China or Russia, but has certainly had plenty from the Dictator in the White House. All parroted by his selected henchmen, carefully selected for their blind allegiance, rather than any semblance of intelligence or ability to run a country. Tragic.
The problem with the Monroe Doctrine is that only one country signed up to it, everybody else just ignored it and continues to. Just as the US admin ignores those international bodies and agreements it disagrees with or believe shouldn't apply to the US.
I understand that the present incumbent of the White House is going to rename it the Donroe Doctrine, there's plenty to read about it on line!
Greenland is more of a future battle. The ice is melting meaning that it is opening up more and the arctic is becoming the biggest threat to nato, so security there will become important. The US had something like 25 military instillations there during world war 2 but they don't need to own it, or its mineral wealth to protect the area. An interesting theory is that legacy is becoming important and men with big ego's want a legacy (and some don't care if it's positive or negative), since someone is likely to get spanked in the mid terms and lose alot of their power, they are letting the crazy out early. I still want to believe it's mostly bluff and just the way they believe a deal can be done but I'm constantly surprised by the way the world is going.
Trump may be largely bluff, but the powerful people around him are not. If he utters it, they feel vindicated in enacting it. That's the worry, IMV.
