The irony being that never has a President been so hated by so many. It's sad, really. Their ignorance and inability to put their silly emotions aside has cost Trump the credit he deserves. The enemies of America are well funded and have great access to media, pretty much owning all of it.
The irony being that never has a President been so hated by so many. It's sad, really. Their ignorance and inability to put their silly emotions aside has cost Trump the credit he deserves. The enemies of America are well funded and have great access to media, pretty much owning all of it.
But to his credit, he doesn't seem to care much anyway. He just keeps plowing ahead.
Ab-so-lutely. Led by the Democrat Party. They are one and the same.
Greenland is already part of a defense system. Why is that so hard to understand?
You obviously don't understand anything.
Good reasoning in parts, but also some errors and overstatements.
Strengths (good points) Weaknesses (bad or flawed reasoning)
Intelligent Americans get it, but rational thought is lost on the dipshit Democrats. Hell Trump could donate all his wealth to the poor and Democrats would still piss and moan.
Who has the largest fleet of icebreakers in the world? Hint: It is not the US. We have three!Good reasoning in parts, but also some errors and overstatements.
- Location matters: Greenland sits along polar flight paths and near the GIUK gap, so it is strategically useful for early warning, missile-tracking, and monitoring Russian naval/submarine activity.
- Existing US assets: The US already uses Pituffik (Thule) for missile warning and space surveillance, so the strategic logic for more sensors or defenses there is sound.
- Shorter approach routes: Polar trajectories reduce time for incoming strikes compared with some other approaches, so northern radars and interceptors contribute to layered defense.
- “Sits directly between the US and Russia's ICBMs” is imprecise. ICBM trajectories vary; Greenland is on some polar/semi-polar routes but not a literal chokepoint for all Russian ICBMs. Strategic warning relies on dispersed sensors (satellites, distant radars) not a single island.
- “Must become part of the US” is unnecessary and false. Sovereignty over Greenland is not required for US access or to enforce maritime control; long-standing defense agreements with Denmark already allow significant US basing and operations. Annexation would be legally, politically, and diplomatically costly and provide little extra technical advantage.
- Overstates control of surrounding waters. Even if Greenland were independent, Denmark (and international law: EEZs/UNCLOS) and NATO cooperation can—and do—limit adversary operations. Sovereignty over land alone doesn’t automatically prevent other states from operating; presence, surveillance, and allied patrols are the real levers.
- Assumes adversaries would easily “place naval and air forces much closer.” Russia can already operate in the Arctic where ice permits, but basing, sustainment, and ice conditions limit large-scale, sustained deployments. Proximity is constrained by geography, logistics, and allied monitoring.
- Ignored alternative defenses and sensors. Modern early warning relies heavily on satellites, over-the-horizon sensors, and allied infrastructure; Greenland is valuable but not the sole critical node.
View attachment 1209451
Bottom line
- The general premise—that Greenland is strategically important for early warning and monitoring in the Arctic—is correct.
- The conclusions that only US ownership can secure those advantages, and that without ownership adversaries can easily gain decisive proximity, are overstated and not supported by how modern deterrence, international law, and allied basing arrangements work.
sources:
Again, there is virtually zero chance we would allow China or Russia to encroach on Greenland NOW.
BINGO!
What did he get?
Yeah, if you think about it, JFK was president when Russia tried to set up nukes in Cuba and back then he and democrats thought that was so agregious that we risked a nuclear war to stop it from happening.
There are many reasons, one would also be that the Canada annexation dude, is loosing more and more reasonable Rep. members of Congress. Since he only invents and publicizes fictitious or brainless comments, to simply distract from his disastrous presidency, his empty promises and loads of threatening legal issues, pertaining to his illegal and criminal actions and behavior.
