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

[toomuchtime_]

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

That's what I said, FDR sent US troops to occupy Greenland because it presented an obvious vulnerability to North American defenses.

 

[Seymour Flops]

1) Yeah, American arrogance at its finest. The Ugly American. And the reason I say that is, to me, America has always set itself as the standard. You guys are always bleating on about how you are the greatest country in the world (it's not) due to the way the country is set up (again, it's a shitty system IMO). That includes the freedoms it affords. Yet, that very sentence you have just written lets us know how a lot of you truly feel. Dictatorial tendencies. You're right, you have every right to think like that. I have every right to call you out on it.
2) Meh, as I said, you have nukes. If that isn't going to protect you, nothing is.
3) No, but he wasn't ranting and raving like the current loon in the WH is. He also respected the sovereignty of an ally.

So . . . you don't like Trump and you don't like Americans for electing Trump.

You should just put that in your sig and save yourself all the typing.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We have an AF base in greenland and we are currently expanding it...

So there's no issue with Greenland but Trump has decided to cause one.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

Trump is still trying to prevent Greenland against the modern equivalent of the Axis

 

[Etymology gaslight]

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?

Because the other countries
don't alway play nice,
east hemisphere west hemisphere vibe
with a precedent.

That′s right
I gotta take him off of here
There's only one and that′s me
You understand?
Before I left fighting, you understand?
That sucker think he good, that sucker think he can whoop me
And I know he can't whoop me
Hey boy, the nigga whole style is chump
You understand?
When it comes to me

 

[Luckyone]

That's what I said, FDR sent US troops to occupy Greenland because it presented an obvious vulnerability to North American defenses.

No, he sent them to protect Greenland against occupation of Hitler. That had nothing to do with our safety

 

[Luckyone]

Trump is still trying to prevent Greenland against the modern equivalent of the Axis

Why is he interested in protecting Greenland (by taking over the island) against the modern equivalent of axis? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Protecting Greenland by punishing them?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

No, not at all. I wouldn't trust the Chinese as far as I could throw them. It seems you are creating impossible scenarios. My argument starts and stops with US nuclear umbrella and NATO. That is all that is needed to keep China or Russia at bay. They are allowed to trade with China you know, just like the world. I live in Australia. China owns vast numbers of mines and land in the country and they are culpable to Australian law. Nothing changes here. The same would happen in Greenland - they would be culpable to their laws. That would be part of the agreement. That being said, China will never build nuke reactors in Greenland. I doubt they'll even have much to do with them other than a normal trading partner. My advice to Trump would be, instead of acting LIKE China - ie a bully boy - have a yarn with Denmark/Greenland and sign some trade deals. Again, for the stupid (not saying you are), they don't need to sign a military alliance with the US, they're already in one - again, NATO.

For a start, the ice is starting to melt, thus these rare earth metals are becoming available. So your scenario is far fetched. You seem to think China has designs on the US. It probably couldn't give a ****, much like the US does about trying to invade China.

You guys create all these unlikely 'what-if' scenarios in order to justify your position. As long as there is NATO and nukes nothing is going to happen.

 

[Hurricanelover]

If Greenland is something we want. Why not Puerto rico? Puerto rico has 1000 times the economy compared to greenland and has voted to join our union.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why is he interested in protecting Greenland (by taking over the island) against the modern equivalent of axis? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Protecting Greenland by punishing them?

Strategic space base we have there

Pituffik Space Base - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rambunctious]

So there's no issue with Greenland but Trump has decided to cause one.

The issue is with our enemies who want Greenlands rare earth minerals and strategic position in our hemisphere....
Please try not thinking like a liberal arts graduate and think like a realist.... All Greenland has to do is to approve a larger US military footprint...

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, he sent them to protect Greenland against occupation of Hitler. That had nothing to do with our safety

And he didn't want the nazis there because they would be a threat to North America, and that's why Trump wants to control Greenland, too.

 

[Robert W]

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

We Americans support our ensuring Greenland supports our national security.; Democrats, the shit asses, don't support it.

 

[Lockback]

The issue is with our enemies who want Greenlands rare earth minerals and strategic position in our hemisphere....
Please try not thinking like a liberal arts graduate and think like a realist.... All Greenland has to do is to approve a larger US military footprint...

THIS.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, not at all. I wouldn't trust the Chinese as far as I could throw them. It seems you are creating impossible scenarios. My argument starts and stops with US nuclear umbrella and NATO. That is all that is needed to keep China or Russia at bay. They are allowed to trade with China you know, just like the world. I live in Australia. China owns vast numbers of mines and land in the country and they are culpable to Australian law. Nothing changes here. The same would happen in Greenland - they would be culpable to their laws. That would be part of the agreement. That being said, China will never build nuke reactors in Greenland. I doubt they'll even have much to do with them other than a normal trading partner. My advice to Trump would be, instead of acting LIKE China - ie a bully boy - have a yarn with Denmark/Greenland and sign some trade deals. Again, for the stupid (not saying you are), they don't need to sign a military alliance with the US, they're already in one - again, NATO.

For a start, the ice is starting to melt, thus these rare earth metals are becoming available. So your scenario is far fetched. You seem to think China has designs on the US. It probably couldn't give a ****, much like the US does about trying to invade China.

You guys create all these unlikely 'what-if' scenarios in order to justify your position. As long as there is NATO and nukes nothing is going to happen.

The nuclear umbrella just means that if a country under the US nuclear umbrella is attacked by nukes the US will retaliate on its behalf with nukes. It is totally irrelevant to the situation in Greenland.

If Europe failed the US by allowing China to set up bases in Greenland, the US would have no reason to offer Europe any kind of protection and would almost certainly leave NATO and that would mean no nuclear umbrella over Europe.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why is he interested in protecting Greenland (by taking over the island) against the modern equivalent of axis? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Protecting Greenland by punishing them?

Trump isn't trying to protect Greenland. He is trying to protect North America by securing Greenland.

 

[Dr Grump]

So . . . you don't like Trump and you don't like Americans for electing Trump.

You should just put that in your sig and save yourself all the typing.

I don't like Trump. I don't like the Deplorables who voted for Trump (ie, not the repubs who voted for him because they don't like the Dem agenda, I'm talking about those that actually believe this shit). This current situation has nothing to do with me liking or disliking Trump. I would feel the same way no matter who was in charge. Then again, any normal Dem or Repub wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Dr Grump]

The nuclear umbrella just means that if a country under the US nuclear umbrella is attacked by nukes the US will retaliate on its behalf with nukes. It is totally irrelevant to the situation in Greenland.

If Europe failed the US by allowing China to set up bases in Greenland, the US would have no reason to offer Europe any kind of protection and would almost certainly leave NATO and that would mean no nuclear umbrella over Europe.

You do realise that the chances of Chinese bases being set up in Greenland are about as possible as Chinese bases being set up in Montana.

 

[Dr Grump]

All Greenland has to do is to approve a larger US military footprint...

Both the head of Greenland and Danish foreign minister are happy to do that. But that is not the point. Trump and his cronies want the wealth, too, that will be generated.

 

[Luckyone]

And he didn't want the nazis there because they would be a threat to North America, and that's why Trump wants to control Greenland, too.

Well, even if your comments is correct, Hitler was attacking many countries and the threat to US was real. What “REAL” threat are we facing now? We are the strongest country in the world by at least 10 times, meaning we are the threat now to all, not the other way it was then! People are more likely to ally themselves against us, than help us, especially since it is us who is acquiring countries, Venezuela for example!