"What does he need to 'get' Greenland for?"

Look at a map but not a 2-D map - a globe.

The shortest route for missiles from European Russia to continental USA goes over Greenland. The best way to take out intercontinental missiles is at their apogee and that happens to be over Greenland. Trump's anxious to build his continental "Golden Dome" and Greenland is a vital part of that. It may turn out that his pressure on Denmark forces them to hand over exclusive access to large parts of the island and that that'll satisfy him. All part of the negotiation - Art of the Deal.

"mhaze has a pretty bad habit of never acknowledging any point from the other side.
He makes his arguments and then proclaims victory, much like Trump himself."

AC....you've gotta be joking. With you more than any other member of the group, I've spent many many posts explaining the falsity in your positions.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on the Russian language in Ukraine.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on surveyed desires of Crimeans and Donbass residents.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on bombing of the Gazan hospital.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims made by your charlatan Thai source (can't be bothered looking up his name just now).

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on the air war over Tehran.

How many posts did it take to get you to see the truth about you false claims on bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Rather than making a point and absconding - and there are quite a few such members here - I always hang around to fully expose the lies you so readily fall for.

It seems we're finally aligned, mhaze!

I've never claimed Thucydides endorsed the logic of the Melian Dialogue, only that he recorded it as a stark articulation of power politics within a narrative that goes on to show its consequences. That's precisely why I said the disagreement wasn't about whether power exists, but about treating that logic as exhaustive or wise.

Nothing in what you've just written contradicts that. In fact, it reinforces it.

Where we diverged was never on Thucydides' methodology or his attempt at impartiality. It was on the move from description to prescription - from recording how actors speak about power to asserting that this exhausts the analysis of politics.

If your position is now that Thucydides was documenting rather than endorsing, and that his work isn't reducible to a realpolitik slogan, then there's no substantive disagreement left.

It took you a while, but you eventually got there this time. Gratz!

Oh so JD finally caves and then tries to rewrite the entire thread. Pretty standard.

You think so, mhaze?

//Oh so JD finally caves and then tries to rewrite the entire thread. Pretty standard.//

Then why am I the only one to ever provide links and/or quotes?

How about a quote trail to show us what you're referring to here, as I had done earlier?

Not gonna happen, is it?

Since you won't do it, mhaze, I figured I'd oblige. From the top…

My position from the start:

"Invoking the Melian Dialogue doesn't help. Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."
Posted by John Daysh, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 10:24:07 AM
_____
Your immediate response:

"No. He was describing the real world… realpolitik reigns supreme… Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 11:17:44 AM
_____
You then doubled down repeatedly:

"Realpolitik. Who has the muscle is all that matters."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 5:46:03 PM
_____
When I pressed the distinction between description and endorsement, your reply was not textual rebuttal but credential appeal:

"Read the whole of Thucydides Histories (three times in my case) and then we'll talk."
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 7 January 2026 5:46:03 PM
_____
When asked to identify where I'd contradicted the text, you said:

"You have to read the entire history or at least the first three or four books to get it."
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 January 2026 11:58:39 AM
_____

Still no passages. Still no contradiction identified.

Then, finally, you wrote:

"Thukydides doesn't endorse 'that logic'…"
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 10 January 2026 1:40:51 PM

Which is exactly what I said at the start.

At no point have I claimed Thucydides endorsed the Melian logic. I've consistently argued that he records it, starkly, and that what follows in the narrative matters.

So if anyone has "rewritten" anything here, it isn't me. The record is clear:

- I argued from the outset that Thucydides documents rather than endorses
- You initially rejected that and insisted "muscle is all that matters"
- You later conceded non-endorsement while accusing me of retreat

If you think that's inaccurate, the remedy is simple: quote me changing position.

Over to you.