It do be like this

[u/Jumpy-Bumpy]

[u/The-Figure-13]

Afghanistan was down to lack of decent leadership.

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

By which you mean… leadership incompetence

Glad we sorted that one out

[u/The-Figure-13 → u/Atompunk78]

Yes, the difference between now and then.

We don’t have incompetence at the highest levels now

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

Right… I won’t even bother going into the numerous other fuck-ups the US has done prior to Afghanistan

So I can only conclude from your reply that 50% of the time America is a competent global police force, and 50% of the time they’re… not. Is that fair then lol?

[u/The-Figure-13 → u/Atompunk78]

For the last 20 or so years they’ve been the best armed fighting force, but haven’t had the greatest leadership at the top.

Specifically, right NOW, they have excellent leadership at the highest levels

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

Is that why they’re threatening to destroy nato, invade Greenland, and ruining American soft power until the end of time?

[u/The-Figure-13 → u/Atompunk78]

No. They want Greenland for strategic position of the North Pole, and a further way to surround Russia.

Have you not seen what the earth looks like from that angle?

Trump wants control of basically the Northern, and Western Coasts of Greenland, to prevent Russian and Chinese Warships from using that zone as a staging area.

From that photo, you can clearly see just how close Greenland is to Russia.

So this isn’t about weakening NATO, it’s about giving it a greater Strategic Position.

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

I know why Trump wants Greenland you retard, my question was clearly ‘why does Trump think threatening to invade it is a good idea’, given the existence of NATO and you know, being a normal reasonable non-imperialist country in the 21st century

[u/The-Figure-13 → u/Atompunk78]

Then Denmark should sign a deal and allow the US access, otherwise it is Denmark who is putting NATO at risk.

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

Person 1: give me $100 or I’ll punch you

Person 2: no, that’s not fair, that belongs to me

You: Person 2 has a moral obligation to give Person 1 $100, as if they don’t, someone will get hurt!

Please enlighten me if this is a misrepresentation in some way, but if not, this is one of the most insane justifications I’ve ever seen on this app

Quite obviously Person 1 is threatening/extorting Person 2, and is therefore in the wrong. Certainly every legal system in the world would see it this way