I don't understand this response.

Surely you are aware that Denmark doesn't come as a little isolated package? Your country, the US, gets a group deal. Your allies in Europe have sent soldiers to die for you very recently. Including, little Denmark.

On the back of pax Americana, supported by your allies, you have continued to live as the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. That system did not arise out of altruism. It was a strategic bargain. Allies accepted US leadership and some constraints on autonomy in exchange for security guarantees and access to the US-led economic order. The US, in return, gained disproportionate influence and long-term economic advantages.

I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.

Why do you even feel the need to suggest that Denmark is irrelevant to the US? It is only technically true if Denmark was the only ally you had. I think you're smart enough to know this, so why are you saying it?

> I pointed out that Denmark is a country the size of Maryland and couldn't meaningfully move the needle in any serious engagement involving the U.S. military. If the U.S. went to war with China, having Denmark in our camp versus not having Denmark in our camp would make literally no difference.

Destroying NATO and our relations with the western states that have heretofore been either formal allies or friends-inclined-to-cooperate with the US has much wider consequences than not having Denmark “in our camp”, both on security issues in the narrowest physical sense and on the broad range of softer issues that impact the security landscape, as the almost immediately way the current crisis over Greenland has resulted in overtures from erstwhile allies to China demonstrates pretty dramatically.

Any reasonable substantive analysis of the situation can't possibly limit itself to just the direct benefits of "having Denmark in our camp", especially considering the context of this thread. Would having the support of Denmark be the make or break factor in a war between the US and China? Almost certainly no. Would the second and third order effects of the US ending its alliance with Denmark and/or NATO, and potentially turning them into enemies, by forcibly taking over Danish territory or something similar impact the US ability to fight a war with China? Almost certainly yes.

No, that's a response based in fact. I have no dog in that race, I'm not Danish and strongly believe that following the USA on that particular ill advised adventure was a mistake. But the people that went went because the USA invoked article 5 and that's what allies do.

For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous. You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference between some of the worst trolls on HN and what you are putting out there. The only thing I give you credit for is that you are doing this under your own name rather than hiding behind anonymity like the bulk of the rest but that does not change the nature of what you communicate one bit.

If you want substantive posts you are going to have to stop posting what arguably is the worst kind of flamebait.

> Why do you always respond to substantive posts with feelings and personal attacks?

You get the audience that responds to you, mate. If what you want is reasoned debate, you need to apply positive feedback when people come to you with reasoned debate. You’re negatively conditioning the “reasoned debate” population with every ideological screed.

Then there’s the willingness to violate social norms (e.g., zero respect for foreign soldiers who died for your country) and insult or denigrate people on the basis of their culture/religion/status. That probably doesn’t help you find dispassionate debate partners.