Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?

[Dr Grump]

Are the Danes going to pay for these bases that would be protecting their territory? In fact we should, then send them the bill. Selling Greenland would look a lot more attractive then.

You're the one who wants them there. You pay for them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

**** me. Well done. He does. Absolutely. From weaponising the FBI and justice dept, to sending out the cowardly masked ICE agents, to trying to cancel Jimmy Kimmel, to going after the prosecutor who (rightly) got him convicted, to this business with Greenland. Tell me which part ISN'T Nazi-like behaviour. Take your time.

None of it is anything like nazi Germany. Apparently you know as little about history as you do about current events. Trump's thinking about Greenland is exactly the same as FDR's was when he invoked the Monroe Doctrine and sent troops to occupy Greenland because it posed such an obvious vulnerability to American's defenses.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why does China call itself a near-arctic power? They are nowhere near the arctic. There are only so many options towards expansion.

How Greenland could become China's Arctic base

The vast northern expanse of Greenland needs investment, and China is willing to help – for a price.

www.bbc.com

It's called free trade. Thought the US was a champion of free trade. You don't like what Greenland is doing with China, offer them a better deal. Trading with China and having a military alliance with them are two different things. The US trades with China. You gonna invade yourselves? Don't forget - for the millionth time - Greenland is already protected militarily by NATO, and that includes the US.

 

[Dr Grump]

None of it is anything like nazi Germany. Apparently you know as little about history as you do about current events. Trump's thinking about Greenland is exactly the same as FDR's was when he invoked the Monroe Doctrine and sent troops to occupy Greenland because it posed such an obvious vulnerability to American's defenses.

You obviously know nothing about history either. The Monroe Doctrine was in effect at the time when there was no nuclear umbrella. The US also has the biggest and most powerful military in the world. All I'm hearing are excuses to excuse deplorable behaviour.

 

[JimH52]

What is the personal and economic benefit of getting Greenland for Americans. Will our economic, health, or income become better if we get it?

Trump said we need Greenland for our National Security:



but this map does not explain why we need it. After all, we have Alaska that is next to Russia, whereas Greenland is not close to Russia and even then, there are many other nations between Russia and Greenland and they are not supporting us taking over, even though if we took it over, they would have closer protection from us than they presently have:

View attachment 1207958

By getting Greenland, no Americans are going to get any additional benefits for their lives. In fact, the expense of getting Greenland and defending it (against Russia and China) would actually take away benefits we need, such lower cost of Health Insurance, etc.

AI Overview

If the U.S. were to acquire Greenland, Americans would likely lose stability in NATO alliances and international trust, face significant economic burdens from managing a remote territory with high social costs, risk retaliatory trade wars (tariffs) from European allies, and deal with potentially complex internal secessionist movements inspired by Greenland's own independence drive.

Why then should we (Americans) support Trump's own STRONG desire to take over Greenland if the only benefit is for supporting his ego?

I have to think that this is part of a larger plan that trump and vlad have cooked up. He could not destroy NATO by insisting they pay more for their defense. He has demeaned NATO since he entered public life. He and his daddy, Vlad, finally got together in Alaska and come up with a way to crush NATO.

You have to wonder who our allies are. He gives Poootin a red carpet welcome in Alaska and then throws the Ukrainian President out of the WH. His cult must be blind. They cannot see that he is desperately trying to align the US with Russia.

He is driving a wedge between the US and our best European allies. How far does he go before repubs in Congress say enough is enough. Or are they okay with our Russian allies that he is so desperate to have.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What is the personal and economic benefit of getting Greenland for Americans. Will our economic, health, or income become better if we get it?

Trump said we need Greenland for our National Security:



but this map does not explain why we need it. After all, we have Alaska that is next to Russia, whereas Greenland is not close to Russia and even then, there are many other nations between Russia and Greenland and they are not supporting us taking over, even though if we took it over, they would have closer protection from us than they presently have:

View attachment 1207958

By getting Greenland, no Americans are going to get any additional benefits for their lives. In fact, the expense of getting Greenland and defending it (against Russia and China) would actually take away benefits we need, such lower cost of Health Insurance, etc.

AI Overview

If the U.S. were to acquire Greenland, Americans would likely lose stability in NATO alliances and international trust, face significant economic burdens from managing a remote territory with high social costs, risk retaliatory trade wars (tariffs) from European allies, and deal with potentially complex internal secessionist movements inspired by Greenland's own independence drive.

Why then should we (Americans) support Trump's own STRONG desire to take over Greenland if the only benefit is for supporting his ego?

Greenland would most likely be a blue state, giving Dems 3 more votes. I’m surprised Dems aren’t all over that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You obviously know nothing about history either. The Monroe Doctrine was in effect at the time when there was no nuclear umbrella. The US also has the biggest and most powerful military in the world. All I'm hearing are excuses to excuse deplorable behaviour.

The more you post the less sense you make. FDR occupied Greenland to prevent our enemies from taking it and using it to launch attacks on North America. The same situation exists today. Greenland is a Danish colony that cannot support itself, and the economy of Denmark is heavily dependent on trade with China, so it is not inconceivable that Denmark would sign an agreement with China to mine Greenland's natural resources, and once the Chinese were there, it would be impossible to monitor or control what they were doing there.

 

[Dr Grump]

Greenland would most likely be a blue state, giving Dems 3 more votes. I’m surprised Dems aren’t all over that.

Politically, if Greenland was going to belong to anybody outside of Europe, it makes more sense to be Canada.

 

[buttercup]

Once again... it's amazing to see people cheering for a long-standing globalist / technocrat plan.

 

[otto105]

I dunno, National Security sure seems to be a personal interest for most....simp.

How so?

How does it affect our national security.

 

[Dr Grump]

The more you post the less sense you make. FDR occupied Greenland to prevent our enemies from taking it and using it to launch attacks on North America. The same situation exists today. Greenland is a Danish colony that cannot support itself, and the economy of Denmark is heavily dependent on trade with China, so it is not inconceivable that Denmark would sign an agreement with China to mine Greenland's natural resources, and once the Chinese were there, it would be impossible to monitor or control what they were doing there.

Of course they would monitor and control them. Other than Tibet and wanting the so-called 'rogue' nation of Taiwan under its belt, China has shown no expansionist tendencies. Xi wants trade. He needs trade to keep his people happy. The less sense I make? Which part of 'nuclear umbrella' and 'NATO' don't you understand. You think China is going to build bases there? You think Denmark and Europe AND their ally the US would allow it? The answers are no, no and no. Jesus, you people...You're the only group of people I know that would see a square and try and convince everybody else it's a circle.

 

[leftwinger]

Stepping stone to getting all of Canada.//

 

[Rambunctious]

Well put forward a trading case that makes them want to work with the US.

That's what our president is going to do...

 

[Dr Grump]

That's what our president is going to do...

Good.

 

[Thinker101]

How so?

How does it affect our national security.

 

[Luckyone]

Greenland would most likely be a blue state, giving Dems 3 more votes. I’m surprised Dems aren’t all over that.

Totally stupid reply

 

[otto105]

So, we can’t buy them like we do with everything else that isn’t in our country.

And why would either China or Russia not do the same?

 

[Luckyone]

Actually, the US did take control of Greenland. FDR invoked the Monroe Doctrine when the US entered WWII because Greenland was so obviously a vulnerability to our defenses - but to you it must seem this was just an example of FDR's giant ego.

No
No, Franklin D. Roosevelt did not take control of Greenland. Instead, after Denmark fell to Nazi Germany in April 1940, the United States established a protectorate over Greenland to protect it from potential Axis attacks. This was formalized in a treaty signed by Denmark's envoy, which authorized the U.S. to protect Greenland and establish military bases there.

Wikipedia+1

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course they would monitor and control them. Other than Tibet and wanting the so-called 'rogue' nation of Taiwan under its belt, China has shown no expansionist tendencies. Xi wants trade. He needs trade to keep his people happy. The less sense I make? Which part of 'nuclear umbrella' and 'NATO' don't you understand. You think China is going to build bases there? You think Denmark and Europe AND their ally the US would allow it? The answers are no, no and no. Jesus, you people...You're the only group of people I know that would see a square and try and convince everybody else it's a circle.

So you take on the situation is just trust China but not the US.

Greenland's resources are buried deeply under a thick layer of Ice, so it is likely the Chinese would have to build a nuclear reactor to supply all the energy required, and since so much heavy machinery will have to be bought in, it is likely the Chinese will have to build a port of their own, and an airfield. Once they are established there if they refuse close inspections, what will Denmark or Europe do? Start a war with China? Once Denmark/Europe allowed the Chinese in that close to North America, it is highly unlikely the US would remain in NATO rather than signing bilateral defense pacts the US believed it could trust.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Greenland would most likely be a blue state, giving Dems 3 more votes. I’m surprised Dems aren’t all over that.

Greenland has only 56,000 people. It is unthinkable that we would give them two senators. It would remain a territory like Puerto Rico, which is basically its relationship with Demark today.