US: When Diplomacy Fails, There's Always Theft
The US government, per Bloomberg, is apparently keeping all options on the table regarding Greenland, including military force, should diplomatic efforts fall short. This isn’t presented as an aggressive land-grab, but rather a 'strategic consideration,' much like previous 'purchases' of vast territories were framed. The media frames this as a proactive measure for 'national security' or 'resource
management'—never as a chilling callback to banana republic interventions or Manifest Destiny with a modern military. One might wonder if the 'free press' would be so nonchalant if, say, China declared it wouldn't rule out military action to acquire a strategic US territory. Suddenly, 'invasion' would replace 'acquisition,' and 'tyranny' would overshadow 'strategic interest.' The US has a long,
documented history of using military might to secure economic and strategic interests globally, from the annexation of Hawaii to countless interventions in Latin America. Yet, each new instance is presented as a singular, regrettable necessity, rather than a continuation of empire. How many times will we pretend 'diplomatic failure' is just an unfortunate prelude to righteous conquest?