> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
I recently fell in a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000..
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
> All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics ...
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.
> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
It depends who is president.
I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.
Might be also that AI slob screw up, that allmost lead to armed confrontation with china: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f...
Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...
They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
etc.
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
I recently fell in a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000..
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
...It's amazing how people keep agreeing to that.
US murdered 123 children in school, this has to be the top story of all world news for a year
It’s 2006. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Disputed by who?
“Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken”[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I also recommend the book “The Great War for Civilisation” by Robert Fisk
Have you never been at school?
It's 2016. Candidate Trump rails on Bush and his decision to get involved in Iraq.
He's not just a liar. He sold out his country.
And all the republicans will still vote red for the lying, cheating, grifting man.
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?
For a sizable fraction of people, when the facts conflict with their biases, they choose to reject the facts and double-down on their biases.
From an outsider's perspective, it's to be expected given the existence of cognitive dissonance.
I just wish people would snap out of it _eventually_
Racism is a very powerful belief system.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
Are you saying that calling people racist is the worst bigotry?
False accusations of racism (and similar moral slander) is the first step in dehumanizing an outgroup.
More likely something like describing Trumpism.
> All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics ...
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
I heard a good quote once: People don't vote to say thank you. People vote to say fuck you.
I don't trust polling.
Trump was president before. People didn't vote for him a second time if they wanted to improve the economy.
Both times Trump won, the polls predicted he would lose.
Legally can't run a third time or be voted for again. But then again, legality hasn't stopped the things he does. Others need to step up.
Not by anything like the 8-9 points we're seeing in midterm polling right now.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
They had a firm belief that the reports and statistics were fake. Let's see how this turns out.
*by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed
That tells a lot about Christian values
Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.
May I assume you ask "for what?" rhetorically?
> ...and for what?
To keep the grift going, of course.
That's fair to say, but lacks details.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
now we get to wonder why
we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere
so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.
Indeed it's likely foolish to read into all the pure stupidity at this point
That's the point, right? If you lie about everything, nothing really matters
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
> they can't lose.
Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
I never said it wasn't going to be an incompetence slugfest
In today's information environment, why would you ever admit to anything that hurts you? There seems to be no penalty for dishonesty.
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
In a conflict, the side that is winning is the side that still has the will to fight.
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
Because they claimed a "flawless victory".
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.