That seems to be going right back around to the accusation ICE is disappearing people. I’m almost certain they have contributed to missings persons, but it would rapidly become apparent if they began disappearing larger amounts of people.

So why did you present this data then? What was your goal in including it here?

Kinda yeah. There was no real plan there. Having the US military prop up a government and then leave isn’t going to work. That’s why Afghanistan was a failure.

Arguably Iraq did work though. The government the US installed persists to this day.

Now if we measure it by the metric of “fighting terror” then yes failure all around. If the goal was to remove Sadam and create a US friendly government well that did happen.

Different conversation is should we have ever gone there in the first place and the answer is no

You are misrepresenting the data here.

This is basically a total number of all open missing persons cases, not number of cases per year. This represents all open cases within the past 34 years. If we assume an equal rate of missing persons cases per year that becomes about 18,000 people a year.

If you actually look at your data you’ll see a pretty sharp decrease in missing persons cases since the 90s.

We know ICE is committing illegal actions daily, so what’s the point in trying to misrepresent data and pin this on them anyway? Even if the argument is so many people go missing its easy for ICE to dissappear people, it falls apart quickly when you look at the actual numbers. They wouldn’t be able to dissappear many people before causing a significant increase in missing persons reports. 9,000 people would be a 50% increase. There are a lot more than that dissenting right now.

I accidentally dug up a human skeleton at work once. Maybe uncovered is a better word.

Anyway I only got a nasty cold for like a week

Basically everyone in a full size suv is a dumbass. Most people use them as a daily commuter when a sedan would be just fine. Given the added purchase cost, maintenance costs, and fuel costs they might as well just be burning money.

Reminds me of how my dad is obsessed with wanting a SUV large enough that he can tow with. He hasn’t towed anything outside of work ever. He’s going to buy a car that’s way more expensive and costs more in gas so he could theoretically one day tow something. Man doesn’t even own a trailer

This may be what pops the bubble.

Inserting ads into the response would ruin the responses. Making it even more useless

I wouldn’t say friendly more like not hostile.

Like I wouldn’t call China a friendly country to the US, but they are its biggest trading partner

Remember Andrew Jackson? The Supreme Court also told him he couldn’t do something. He did it anyway

What scares me is Trump may actually “win”.

By this I mean, in Vietnam the US had an interest in installing a puppet government and having another state to oppose the Soviet Union.

Trump just wants the oil fields. He’s not above leveling the whole country just to ensure access to the oil fields. He’s flirted with the idea of nukes before and I don’t put it past him to indiscriminately nuke large swaths of the rainforest/interior of Venezuela.

He’s mad enough to do it too, and his base will support him. We’ve known a US that commits war crimes and then tries to ignore them. We’ve never seen a US willing to proudly and loudly commit war crimes to achieve its goals.

Now is it a victory to render nearly half the country unliveable for decades? I personally dont think so, but Trump does and that’s the issue

A free online class, passing a background check, and waiting 10 days is not impossible. As of today the only other requirement is being 21.

Beginning in 2027 you will need a state permit. Which requires nothing new except fingerprinting and a fee ($95). The state then must issue, per the law, the permit in 30 days. This is basically many states concealed carry permit rules.

So yeah this is not impossible by any stretch of the imagination. A simple Google search even reveals that there are gun stores operating in your state. Crazy to imagine they operate with it being impossible to sell guns.

Unless you’re under 21 the only thing preventing you from buying a gun is a criminal record, severe mental illness leading to being institutionalized, or laziness.

There’s not a single state where it’s impossible for you to buy a firearm. At most we’re talking a wait period and maybe a restriction on “assault style” weapons. Which basically means you can buy a hunting rifle with a high capacity chambered in the same rounds. Effectively the same capabilities

I’ve never lived in a home or an apartment with a gas stove. These places have had gas lines, but people weren’t interested.

deleted by creator

Ahem: Vietnam

While more involved than Afghanistan the goal was still never to annex a nation. It was to prop-up another puppet government. Plus the US relied more on sending bodies to the meat grinder there. If we see the US engage at WW2 levels that’s where things get much bleaker. Also worth mentioning we’ve never really seen the US engage in total war this close to home. The last notable war that happened this closely was the Civil War. Greenland is close enough that you can move soldiers from the continental US and have them engaged in combat within the same day. If not under 12 hrs. That was not the case in either Vietnam of Afghanistan

Also I think you’re missing a massive point here: You can’t “topple” Greenland

Not what I said. You can 100% occupy Greenland and remove it from the control of Denmark before they can respond. I’m well aware that Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

But anyway the rest I’m in agreement.

The issue is the US can park a carrier at the northernmost part of Maine and be about 1,200 km from the largest city in Greenland. So still within range.

I also think Afghanistan is a poor comparison. The US never intended to conquer the nation. It wanted to setup a puppet government. It also didn’t throw the full military force at it.

Truthfully we’ve never seen the US engage in a total war to conquer a nation.

If the US threw everything it had at Greenland they could take over most major cities within days. Likely before Denmark/the remainder of NATO could mount a response.

Now that being said effectively patrolling all of Greenland probably wouldn’t be realistic. This would allow for counter insurgency, which is effective against the US typically. Although I doubt this government would give up based in that. More notably the vastness of Greenland will give Denmark and allies an opportunity to establish a foothold to reclaim Greenland.

The best thing Denmark and its allies could do right now is to put more defenses in Greenland. Make it impossible for a quick strike to topple it.

Ideally defensive posturing would discourage an attack entirely. If it doesn’t it would save Denmark and it’s allies more lives while costing the US more.

Either way if the US does invade it will be a lot of pointless bloodshed.

Also unrelated to the war bit, but Greenland is mostly populated by native peoples. Not the descendants of vikings (although there is certainly a percentage that are)

The US regularly moves military personnel and equipment to Europe straight from domestic bases via air. They can certainly reach Greenland as it is closer all while avoiding Canadian airspace.

Personally I believe if the US were to attack quickly it could successfully occupy Greenland in a matter of days. Leading to a very bloody drawn out war shorty thereafter.

If Denmark and it’s allies began increasing defenses now it would likely discourage the US or at the very least prevent a successful invasion.

Either way if deterrence fails there will be a very bloody conflict.

Even at half strength Russia isn’t taking Alaska. Unless they give up on Ukraine entirely.

They don’t have the capabilities on that side of the country at all

I think modern Navies are mostly useless. Between drones and stealth submarines they can all be sunk basically immediately. Honestly this could make it difficult for Europe to intervene at all

Unfortunately the US has the capability to move troop to Greenland by air. It’s how it moved most things into Afghanistan. A country much further away.

Truthfully they could launch ballistic missiles from the mainland and then follow with aircraft, paratroopers, etc. The existing bases provide airfields.

I say this not because I want it, but because it’s possible and that’s frightening.

I assume these things are authorized or announced in some way. If paratroops start falling or landing craft are launched that’s a good indicator.