RayC

Greenland obviously prefers to follow its' own path to wealth. As believers in democracy, I'm sure that the US can understand and support that aim. Presumably Denmark and/or Greenland are repaying any financial debts owed to the US. If not, I'm sure that President Trump would have made the world aware of the default.

Don't be silly.

Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark, so what the Danes think is very much relevant. Whether a referendum is held or not is up to Denmark and Greenland. The US does not get a say. It's ironic that you label Denmark, 'exploitive colonists' when that is the exact role you want the US to adopt. I have no idea how many divisions Denmark has.

My (original) point was that if VP Vance is so concerned about protecting democracy then he should focus closer to home (at least initially).

Indeed. And the Danish and Greenland voters elected governments which do not wish to be part of the US.

If you had bothered to actually read the piece and followed the embedded link, rather than lazily dismissing the matter because you don't like the source of the article, you would have found that the poll relates to a survey conducted by Danish/ Greenland pollsters. Greenland has decided: It does not want to become part of the US.

The Danish government and elected representatives from Greenland have rejected the offer twice (now and 2019). Whether there is a referendum on the issue is a matter for the Danish and Greenland authorities to decide. If the latest opinion poll is anything to go by, Trump's offer would be resoundingly rejected. However, that is all besides the point which I made in my previous post: If VP Vance is so concerned for democracy's survival in the West, a good starting point would apparently be to ensure it is present in the Oval office https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5294315/greenland-trump-red-white-blueland-denmark-california

Although overstated, VP Vance's comments aren't without merit; however, he should firstly deal with issues closer to home. For example, the citizens of Greenland (and Denmark) have made clear that they have no desire to accept President Trump's offer to become part of the US. That should be the end of it, however, Trump has taken umbrage at this refusal and not ruled out taking Greenland by force. In the interests of democracy and preserving freedom of choice, VP Vance should have a word with his boss.

More of your usual Russian apologist propaganda with a bit of rhetoric against the Western democratic model thrown in for good measure. Btw: You are wrong (yet again) in your analysis of WW2. The German Military High Command warned Hitler against starting a war in 1938, as it knew that it was incapable of defeating the European Allies at that time: The Luftwaffe was not ready for war; the combined land forces of the UK and France outnumbered Germany's and the Royal Navy had military superiority. If Chamberlain had supported Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, then events would have turned out very differently. For example and critically, it is almost unthinkable that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact would have been signed. Indeed, given that Russia had a mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia (and a pact of sorts with France), if the UK and France had faced down Hitler's aggression - while at the same time increasing their own rearmament - it is extremely likely that Stalin would have joined the allies in any war against Germany in 1938/9, and there is no way that Germany could have successfully fought on so many fronts as was proven by events from 1943 onwards.

Doesn't Canada have enough problems to deal with currently without having to cope with the buffoon, Verhofstadt's support? 75% of Canada's trade is with the US. Unless it can somehow manage to become a member of the EU, while at the same time remain a member of USMCA, it's a non-starter. Canada leaving USMCA would be as bone headed a decision as the UK leaving the EU.

To misquote Mrs Merton: "So Bianca, what first attracted you to the multi-millionaire Kanye West?" TBF she deserves every penny of the divorce for putting up with the fruitcake.

Imo the EU, NATO and the majority of the individual member states have mishandled the relationship with Russia. Putin's intentions were clear from, at least, 2014 and a strong response was required then. Unfortunately, it did not happen. You state, quite correctly imo, that Ukraine cannot now win without direct NATO military intervention. Imo the possibility of this happening should be an option. Therefore, rather than Trump's opening gambit being effectively appeasement, I would have preferred the telephone call to have progressed along the following lines: I (Trump) recognise 1) that you (Putin) have a genuine concern regarding the treatment of Russian speakers in the Donbass and that there should be measures taken to safeguard their safety and to ensure that they are represented fully in the decision-making process in the region 2) you have a genuine concern regarding the strategic importance of Crimea and measures should be enacted to ensure that Russia does not feel threatened in this region 3) you have concerns about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. While I strongly believe in the right of self-determination (both for Ukraine and NATO), I again accept that you have a genuine concern. Again, discussions can be held to attempt to alleviate your fears. In order for any discussions to take place there has to be an immediate cessation of hostilities. During the ceasefire, existing terrorital positions will be maintained. However, it should not be assumed that the initial positions will be the starting point for negotiations. Indeed, my view is that the pre-war borders should be re-established. If you do not accept these conditions then we will have no alternative but to deploy NATO resources directly in order to support Ukraine. Do I think that this will happen? No. Do I think that it should happen? A guarded 'Yes' but I recognise that it is a strategy fraught with danger (of uncontrollable) escalation. Moreover - and you are more knowledgeable about this aspect than me - the US political establishment (and public?) may well not support it. However, you did ask for alternatives.

Stiddle Mump, I used the Mayo clinic as an example; I could just as easily have used any number of well-respected health organisations to illustrate my point. You seem like a polite sort of chap, so it would be remiss of me to call you a liar; 'misguided' is probably more apt. As you disregard the overwhelming body of evidence which undermines your opinions, I can only conclude that there is little chance of me alone being able to change your mind. In the circumstances, I will take my leave of you and withdraw from any further discussion on this topic. I wish you well, sir.

I believe the figures. It feels like an additional 4.8m people have been idly standing around blocking my way this year😤

We can all create versions of the truth, Stump.

Middle Stump, You'll forgive me if I prefer the explanations proffered by, dare I say, a more illustrious source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/flu/symptoms-causes/syc-20351719 https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/topics/covid-19

In that case, perhaps Europe should move towards aligning its' economic and foreign policy objectives more closely with China and/or India rather than the US.

Who exactly are these "Rulers"? Given that the COVID event was a global event, they must be part of a worldwide cohort. Why release/ inflect/ manipulate/ mislead (add/amend/delete as you see fit) the masses as to the origin/ effects (again, add, etc) of the virus/non-virus? What was the "Rulers" objective?

The onus is on you/ Dr Coleman to supply a credible argument to support the contention. Let's just say I remain unconvinced.

So neither flu or COVID are viruses. What are they then? Deadly bacteria? What caused the jump in the number of excess deaths worldwide in 2020? So the 'non-virus' known as 'Spanish flu' managed to inflect 2/3rds of the world's population as a result of a combination of the trauma caused by WW1 (among non- combatans also?), aspirin becoming freely available (overuse causing death?) , radio (waves? messaging? only in the US?) and medical malpractice (worldwide?) And I'm the one spouting nonsense!!! Rightio.

So for the sake of argument, I'll assume that your contention that COVID is a sub-type of the existing influenza virus is correct. Do you agree that the vaccines available in 2019 seemingly offered no protection against this variation? If so, then there was a lesson to be learned from history. The last time a sub-type of the influenza virus caused widespread inflection on a worldwide scale was in 1918. This resulted in 20 million deaths (conservative estimate). These facts hardly support your idea that governments' (initial) responses were disproportionate.

What is this 'proper' Brexit? What exactly should have been done differently?

@Bkk Brian @richard_smith237 You have addressed points to me but apologies, I will not give you the courtesy of a direct reply as I am spending far too much time on this board (and this thread in particular) and am drawing a line under things now. Happy New Year to you both.

I mentioned yesterday that I would prefer to keep our exchanges civil, but you have obviously decided to decline my offer. Do you have any idea what a gilt (bond) is and how they work? It's a rhetoric question. Fortunately, the House of Commons has produced a simple guide. I suggest you educate yourself by reading it https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-are-gilts-a-simple-guide/#:~:text=When the government needs to,when the gilt 'matures'. I have addressed each and every one of your direct questions. You have been extremely selective in addressing mine, and introduced additional information into the discussion which, being generous, is tangential. I assume that you do so in order to deflect attention away from your lack of knowledge. I'm done providing 'free' education to you. Another charitable person will have to take up the slack. Alternatively, you can pay for it. Warning: The provider may have to impose VAT. Happy New Year.

Do you a source/ links? I can only assume that 'Private schools' includes religious schools and the like which are funded by the state.